|
|
Perspective
Old is Often Gold
by J. Ajithkumar
The very
popular perception that youth and young blood are the sure solutions to
all our problems is completely misplaced. Quite in contrast, most of the
outstanding contributions for betterment of society anywhere in the
world have come from leaders when they were past their youthful age.
Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Julius Nyrere or Abraham Lincoln did
anything good for mankind only after they have passed their prime. It is
only logical that such men who came up from the middle or lower rungs of
society by their own merit could afford to contribute something only
after their days of struggle to the very top. The climb to the top must
take time and if we press hard to ripen the fruits, it will result only
in unripened fruits which are good for nothing.
The laws
of nature are very clear regarding such matters. As a new born, almost
all of us (except those who are physically or mentally challenged) are
in the same boat in terms of capabilities. But then we struggle on to
develop our skills based on likings and opportunities that present
before us. More than relative merit, sometimes it is the relatives’
merit that plays its part in getting us the opportunities. But whatever
be the amount of backing we receive from our relatives, the ultimate
result squarely rests on the foundations of one’s own shear merit,
perseverance, attitude and luck. No force on earth can make a visionary
leader out of an undeserving aspirant even if he or she happens to get
the best of opportunities and backing.
Pre-Maturity Ensures Mishandling
It happens that familiarity may breed contempt, but it is absolute
necessity to have some familiarity if one wants to do anything good in
any field or to anyone. Without familiarity it is not possible to
develop an understanding that will enable doing something good for
anyone. People who are totally unrelated to the situation or community
will not be able to appreciate the intricacies involved and provide
solutions. These factors are more relevant when we are talking about
leaders of countries and movements. The background, character, caliber
and training of leaders are no doubt important, but much more important
is the actual experience of these leaders. In India, we have seen in
action when an inexperienced leader could come to office with an
unprecedented majority. Yet another historic opportunity was wasted and
the country lost at least one more vital decade.
But we cannot blame the particular individual for all that happened. It
is simply impossible for anyone who is unfamiliar with the system to
perform in any situation. This is a universal truth, irrespective of the
capability, caliber and background of the person involved. All that such
persons do, when they come to occupy positions of power by vagaries of
popular democratic processes, are to become unwilling puppets in the
hands of ‘vulturous’ advisors and classy old men who know how to play
the power games. The opportunity gets lost not only for the individual
but also for the millions whose lives are dependent on the policies of
those in power. The whole system gets vitiated on account of a wrong
decision of the voters to overlook relative merit for the merit of the
relatives.
Maturity Ensures Understanding
In sharp contrast, we all know the tremendous changes that happened in
India subsequently, under two totally different dispensations, but with
two old men at the helm of affairs. The maturity arising out of their
fifty odd years of experience came into play in changing the direction
of our growth and development. It is jokingly (but rightly) said that
there are two ways to achieve socialism – by distribution of wealth or
by distribution of poverty. But for the first few years of
infrastructure development in post-1947 India, we have been witnessing
only the latter method of socialism being adopted by subsequent
governments in power. It was the maturity of an experienced old man that
decided to change our destiny. The present glory of India is entirely on
account of this change of course, initiated and nurtured by the two old
men in power.
The advantages of maturity are manifold. All of us are accumulating
knowledge every second in our life. Some of it is voluntarily, but most
of it unknowingly. Our vital senses are picking up elements of knowledge
without fail in every moment of our daily lives. Whether one is an
engineer or doctor or graduate or illiterate, the process of
accumulation of knowledge is exactly the same. The more worldly
experiences one undergo, the more wise he or she will be. By repeated
dosages of success and failure, time - the world guru - is tempering
each of us and preparing us for more such incidents in future. What a
mature person possesses is this accumulated wisdom, which makes him
recognize the consequences of his actions upfront. The more aged one is,
the more capable he or she will be in analyzing the consequences of each
action. There is no substitute for actual experience, like there is none
for actual performance. Perhaps the only field where elders must give
way to youngsters is in athletics and games, where brawn plays more role
than the brain.
The amount of damage wrecked by immature leaders in poorer nations is
something that is working against the interests of democracy. More than
democracy as a form of government, it is the associated electoral
mechanisms that are to be blamed for this. We still do not have a good
method for identifying or qualifying leaders for contest. In
unrestrained popular democracies, it is still possible for undesirable
and immature contestants to win and come to power in a legal manner.
Populism is working against the interests of democracy, which is still
perceived as the most evolved form of government in the twenty first
century. A few more immature leaders can easily kill democracy even in
the world’s largest and strongest democracies like India and USA.
October 7, 2007
Top
|
Perspective
|
|
