Nandan Nilekani thinks he is 'unelectable' (Imagining India, page 3). So do most of the educated-corporatized-professional-elite-decent men in the country.
Why so?
A look into what comprises the 'electable' might reveal. The following lot takes a plunge into politics,
- Son / daughter of a political biggie.
- Descendant of some erstwhile royal family.
- People who chose politics as a 'career', mostly after having earned enough through corrupt businesses to invest in the 'career'
- People with proven musclemen-leadership skills - goonda commanders.
The first two kinds have the natural advantage of easily acquired visibility, and existing organizations at work. But the other two are better contenders. They know the tricks of all trades, know how to get it done. If money buys them party tickets, money can make the rest easy. But they lack good reputation, and charm, and formal-communication skills, and media attention, and proper agenda, and more often, intelligence.
You have money. You have some visibility. You are intelligent. You know how to compete. What's the problem then?
You are ignorant. You are the rich guy of this country who thinks the problem of this country is the bad road that gives you a bumpy ride when you travel from your air-conditioned home to your air-conditioned office in your air-conditioned car.
You are indifferent. This country's system never expects you to get involved. And you never get involved.
You are wrong. You are actually NOT unelectable. Give it a try. You can win. You can figure out how.
*
Second thoughts -
The problems I stated above, no 1 and no 2, are a little too harsh and somewhat unfair to Nandan Nilekani. The intent is not actually to criticize Nandan himself, for whom the comments may actually be completely wrong. It is about the previously mentioned educated-corporatized-professional-elite-decent men of our country.
Elections have ended, and all such men (and women), who tried contesting and getting involved, have lost. What is the reason and what does this indicate ? Among others, the obvious looking 'the public resentment against politicians is on a high, and we urgently need alternatives' theory propagated mostly by media, has to face scrutiny. This belief, however true or false, can not be taken to infer that the alternatives (however good) shall find it easy to gain credibility among the voter masses.
Why so?
A look into what comprises the 'electable' might reveal. The following lot takes a plunge into politics,
- Son / daughter of a political biggie.
- Descendant of some erstwhile royal family.
- People who chose politics as a 'career', mostly after having earned enough through corrupt businesses to invest in the 'career'
- People with proven musclemen-leadership skills - goonda commanders.
The first two kinds have the natural advantage of easily acquired visibility, and existing organizations at work. But the other two are better contenders. They know the tricks of all trades, know how to get it done. If money buys them party tickets, money can make the rest easy. But they lack good reputation, and charm, and formal-communication skills, and media attention, and proper agenda, and more often, intelligence.
You have money. You have some visibility. You are intelligent. You know how to compete. What's the problem then?
You are ignorant. You are the rich guy of this country who thinks the problem of this country is the bad road that gives you a bumpy ride when you travel from your air-conditioned home to your air-conditioned office in your air-conditioned car.
You are indifferent. This country's system never expects you to get involved. And you never get involved.
You are wrong. You are actually NOT unelectable. Give it a try. You can win. You can figure out how.
*
Second thoughts -
The problems I stated above, no 1 and no 2, are a little too harsh and somewhat unfair to Nandan Nilekani. The intent is not actually to criticize Nandan himself, for whom the comments may actually be completely wrong. It is about the previously mentioned educated-corporatized-professional-elite-decent men of our country.
Elections have ended, and all such men (and women), who tried contesting and getting involved, have lost. What is the reason and what does this indicate ? Among others, the obvious looking 'the public resentment against politicians is on a high, and we urgently need alternatives' theory propagated mostly by media, has to face scrutiny. This belief, however true or false, can not be taken to infer that the alternatives (however good) shall find it easy to gain credibility among the voter masses.
No comments:
Post a Comment