Leaders

The initiatives of Congress are to come in two areas. One within the party and the other with other parties. First Congress has to Improve its communication with people, cadres, leaders and supporters. Rahul is mainly shouldering this responsibility. But why not other leaders.

It may be argued that some leaders are doing it within their areas. What about other areas, other leaders? There will be many contenders for posts, maybe even for President’s if given a chance. Why not they volunteer propagating parties views, countering the Modi regime on the field.

Some leaders give out statements in media, write their views on social media. Are they enough? Are they doing justice to their potential? Even during elections, they limit themselves to their constituencies or state. Why should they not extend it beyond and even between elections?

The statements of Congress leaders with few exceptions are bland, insipid, prosaic, not interesting and attracting enough to percolate to the people. How many of their messages reached the people? Can they not make it more attractive or find other ways to reach the masses?

Some may say there are limitations of age, barriers of territory, egos, invitations, interference. Most of them are artificial, self-imposed and can be sorted out. These leaders do not devote themselves to the masses. If Rahul does it, expected to do it why not others?

It may be to some extent justified if age imposes limitations in movement. They can encourage, train, motivate other young leaders to do that job. This is where the need for younger leaders sticks. Many of them are articulate, dynamic, forceful but may only need some guidance.

It is a question of performing to their potential within the limitations of the system. If the system has unreasonable barriers it is the responsibility of the leaders to make efforts to solve them at the appropriate level. They need not throw up their hands and wait for things to change.

It may be the truth. But things are not going to change so fast. There are limitations of discussions with leaders or among leaders. Frankness, honesty, dispassionate views, comments have their limitations in public or even in private discussions, as the truth hurts people.

Suggestions, criticisms not welcome

Rahul has a clear foresight to understand the depth of the problems confronting our country and the dangers, consequences of ill-informed decisions by the Modi regime. Definitely, he will be aware of the problems confronting his party. He has a right to choose his time and path.

There may be many routes to choose with each having some plus and minus points. It is for the leaders to choose the path which is comfortable, better for the interests of the party. The outsiders may have fixed notions about adopting a particular path. They need not be right.

The leaders, decision-makers have the benefit of information, ideas made available through various channels. The outsiders can only suggest ideas, information and the possibilities which they consider as logical and sensible on the basis of limited information with them.

Giving suggestions, ideas, advice is a problematic area. It may face aversions, dislike especially when they are unsolicited, uncomfortable to the receiver. People may be taking the liberty, freedom to give such advice out of love, care, concern for persons, parties concerned.

Such intrusions can be taken on merits. But even an objective presentation is mistaken for unfair criticism by some who are passionately attached to a group or party. This kind of attachment blinds people and blunts scope for their improvement or their group concerned.

Forestalling inputs, interactions

All information, ideas, suggestions, advocations whether from internal sources or external are only part of the process of interactions, discussions and analyses. There is no need to forestall such inputs even before receiving them or judge them before discussions and analysis.

More interactions are possible both internal and external. But some barriers, secrecy, regimentation, discipline come in between. When we talk about open governance why not give scope for interactions with relevant contributors. One can stipulate secrecy clauses if required.

Suggestions are never complete. Only with interactions full contributions and thoughts will take shape. If some ideas are presented, if objections are discussed then the originator of the suggestion can improve on it. Why should it be killed as impractical without interactions?

Absolute perfection in any decision making is not realistic. But the improvement in decision making is possible. We jump to conclusions on incomplete information. It is due to a faulty analytical process; has a vast scope for improvement; invariably remains incomplete.

We go by the perception of individuals, discussion on their perceptions, and majority opinion on it. Perceptions or majority opinion need not be right. Even if they seem to be right they should be subjected to criticism, scrutiny without unreasonable restrictions.

Such faulty systemic processes are common for all parties, groups and governments. It is universal with only variations in degrees of imperfections. The emphasis is on the existence of scope. But we comfort ourselves with relative merits instead of performing to our potential.

We may not see merits in such contentions. That is why we are having a government that takes decisions on the basis of midnight dreams or mischievous narratives to impose demonetisation, farmers bills without scrutiny, debate, discussions and implements it surreptitiously.

The opposition parties are unable to expose such daylight robberies and bring to light the truth with absolute clarity and depth to change the perception of people. This is where there is a need for perfecting their response mechanism with contributions, suggestions from all.