T N Ninan: Future leaders

WEEKEND RUMINATIONS

The original "computer boy" of Indian politics was not Rajiv Gandhi but Ajit Singh. Though heir to the political legacy of the venerable Charan Singh, who styled himself as a farm leader, Ajit Singh had studied engineering and worked as a techie in the US before he came back to join the rough and tumble of politics.

The odd thing is that almost nothing of that early exposure to the non-agricultural world showed in what Ajit Singh did, either in politics or when he assumed office as minister. He turned out simply to be Charan Singh's son, a regional Jat leader in the old mould.

There is no shortage of well-educated and able people in politics today, right down to the Haryana chief minister's foreign-educated son, who has just won by a landslide in the Rohtak parliamentary by-election.

The question is, what difference are they making to the quality of political and economic debate, and if they have leadership potential, are they being readied for office through any formal orientation programme, so that India has a core group of future leaders? The answer, regrettably, seems to be that nothing of the sort is being done.

That's not true of Rahul Gandhi. If the Delhi grapevine is to be believed, secretaries to the government are being asked to brief him on issues. He is also said to be having pow-wos with people like Omar Abdullah, presumably to both understand the person as well as the politics of Jammu & Kashmir.

And if there is more than a grain of truth to what the controversial Tehelka has reported from Amethi, Rahul Gandhi is also experimenting with responses to pressure from below for better delivery of government services, jobs and other aspirations of ordinary voters. All of this doubtless makes for an education that helps prepare someone to be a future leader.

But what of all the other personable and photogenic young men whom the Press has feasted on, and who also have political inheritances, an education and some ability? How are they and others with potential being readied for future responsibilities and ministerial office?

The best answer one gets is: there is no leadership training programme in the major political parties. And there is no generational change taking place. Even someone like Jairam Ramesh, who has served more than enough by way of a political apprenticeship, is considered not ready for office although he has probably helped draft every position paper in the Congress in the last half a decade.

The contrast with China is stark. Deng Xiaoping decided early in his tenure that the survivors of the Long March (known, like our Gandhian freedom-fighters, for their political sacrifices more than their ideas on how the country should be taken forward) were past their time; China needed a new generation of leaders who would, well, catch mice.

He and his companions therefore set out on a deliberate programme to identify technically qualified leaders for the future. These are the "third generation" people at the helm of the country today. Indeed, China is already getting a fourth generation of leaders ready, because (unlike in India) Chinese leaders have a stated retirement age and even someone who is in complete command, like Xiang Jemin was, has to step aside when the time comes.

Businessmen and others who visit China and interact with that country's youthful provincial governors and others holding responsible office are almost uniformly impressed by the combination of ability and sense of purpose that they see.

In contrast, we seem to leave it to chance (or bloodlines) to decide who our future leaders should be. No sensible company with any sense of forward planning would adopt such a risky strategy.

While politics is far more freewheeling and much less structured than companies, and although voters will spring surprises by throwing up unknown leaders, the fact is that a large, functioning political party should be planning and developing its future leadership collegium and blooding its future ministers just as much as companies do. The challenge of leading a country is after all no less onerous than corporate leadership.