Email
Print
ShareHowever, the Congress may be ahead of the BJP by eight percentage points, but the total percentages for both parties are small (34 versus 26). A whopping 32 per cent are undecided, an incredibly large number of 'don't knows' suggesting that one-third of the electorate is still to make up its mind. The even finer print shows that the survey was conducted in only ten of India's biggest cities, among its affluent class (Socio
Economic Categories A and B). This segment of the population rarely influences an election.
The large number of 'don't knows' is probably a reflection of the general feeling of drift that is now palpably evident in the country. The virtual abandonment of the nuclear treaty with the United States is the most visible example. You can blame this on the Left party's intransigence and the BJP's cynicism; in short, on coalition politics. But how can consistent underperformance be justified in
areas where there are no ideological differences? Are there, for example, any such differences in agricultural policies?It was a masterstroke to have appointed Sharad Pawar to head the ministry
because of his grassroots knowledge. But Pawar has been more active in the greening of other kinds of fields, ie: cricket. His supporters may argue that he is an excellent administrator and good at delegation and, after all, a CEO of a large industrial group can run a whole lot of companies successfully, so why not here?
The short answer is that a leader, whether in government or industry, should not just lead, but be seen to lead. The sight of the minister of agriculture immersed in cricket elections and disputes while farmers in Vidharbha commit suicide suggests callousness and a misplaced sense of priorities.
What about the home minister? No coalition politics there; he is a Congress loyalist and a political lightweight. Yet his consistent underperformance and penchant for embarrassing gaffes have earned him neither pasture nor reprimand. Another 'loyalist' Congressman, Arjun Singh has also been getting away with hogging the limelight for the wrong reasons. His philosophy seems to be,
interfere with what is working and leave alone what is not. Thus the IIMs and the IITs are fighting for survival, while primary and secondary education -- the most important pillars of any society -- have been left to languish without any inputs, financial or administrative.
These leaders may be too senior to be chastised by the prime minister. But isn't it possible for the PM to set them a time-bound agenda and a set of priorities to implement? And what about junior ministers? To take the most glaring example, the selection of someone like Anbumani Ramadoss may be dictated by coalition politics, but what stops the PM from putting him on the mat? The minister makes headlines for trying to ban smoking, drinking and eating potato wafers on the screen or for failing to wrest control of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, while the real issues of his ministry remain unattended. The government's Common Minimum Programme was to raise spending on public health to 2.5 per cent of GDP, to make life-saving drugs cheaper. And to revive public sector bulk drug manufacturing units. None of this has happened.
Would any chief executive tolerate a departmental head who performs so badly? The scenario at the centre reminds me of the later years of JRD Tata. He gave so much autonomy to the heads of his companies that they had run amuck. It needed a younger, more dynamic man to shake up their empires. But once it was done look, where the Tata group is now.
So do we then have to wait for a Ratan Tata figure to move things around in the country?
