By Gregory Shullai
What is good? Strength. Strength is the only good, weakness the only sin (Swami Vivekananda). So now we have a common understanding of what we mean by good because there are many ways we can look at this attribute and discover the endless disputes that lie therein. We shall look at good in respect of an individual entrusted with taking society towards that goal. The most profound misunderstanding we make in this matter is that we presume the people to be an individual whereas the individual is something quite different – the individual creates things/ideas that are absolute in nature because everything the individual does is entirely his/her own, not the peoples’. Ultimately the individual derives the values of his/her actions from himself/herself, because the person interprets actions from these ideas in an individualistic way. His/her interpretation of what should be done is a personal matter which cannot be generalized and that is the womb where ideas are born. It is the expression of these ideas that allow us to determine whether our leaders are good or not.
A good leader is a “persona of interest” and the people follow him/her – and for the older generation, that was what it was like not so very long ago, owing to a culture that we no longer possess today, and which we have indeed shaken off with a blind ardour, as if it had been some disease; and yet we have not been able to replace it with anything better than political corruption and social lunacy. We were till the late 1990s the country’s most financially disciplined State, corruption was rare, the ADCs received their fair share of revenue from major and minor minerals without manipulation – they never fell short of funds, the implementation of projects left nothing to be desired, our budget was a zero-deficit-budget, we took no loans from the Centre, only Tripura in the North East had a lower corruption rate and because of these qualities we were an interesting people to the leaders in other parts of the country. It is nevertheless undeniable that this culture we possessed fooled others and that we did not deserve the interest shown in us, much less the imitation and emulation displayed by others in trying to rival us. Our leaders possessed the knowledge of how to be diligent in spite of witty comments, they dreaded being in the presence of leaders of the larger States when the subject centred around wealth with a certain degree of fascination, like that experienced by a bird in the presence of a viper…where has all that gone?
Amongst the celebrated leaders of those days, one deserves mention Prof G. G. Swell. He possessed every quality needed to lead the State with his peculiar style, though he did not, which resembled a humourous stoic – witty, though often impertinent. As the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha, he was subtle, daring and a trend setter. Indeed, leaders like Bah Bring, Bah Martin, Bah Radhon, Salseng etc. had a boundless delight with their unusually fine understanding that many contemporaries could not grasp at times – what they had to offer could never be related by others – one had to be there.
When we look back at the leaders we had in the formative years of our State and examine how they handled matters connected with the people, we can only wonder at what we’ve lost. What characteristics did they have that fill us as we are now, partly with a feeling of nausea and partly with pitiful and touching emotions? First and foremost, the passion for being – at all costs – morally exalted and utterly brilliant, meaningful and unpretentious in their private life so much so that we derived our morality from the domain of politics – not religion. Today’s elders observe from afar the movement of our culture knowing that they can no longer influence or remonstrate at this point in time, and are better off remaining silent, as the desire for wealth has ensured that politics is the goal of the youth. However, it cannot be denied that every now and then a young leader emerges who condemns the present culture with enthusiasm, but sadly, not long enough to cause a change – they voluntarily stop objecting to this lower culture, they know only too well that the cloud of what we were had precipitated its last drop
If the most profound spirit of all the spirits of the 70s – 80s appeared among us today, would it suppose that we have risen above what we were? Well to answer that question here are some parameters that the spirit would probably use to grade the present generation from the generation of the 70s – 80s. Back then the people were a pleasure to behold, to listen to, to be with, are they still the same? The people had a thorough knowledge of what was good for them and the State and displayed annoyance when that which was good was transgressed, do they still get annoyed with transgressors? The children honoured their parents and the young respected their elders, do they still honour their parents and respect their elders? The people knew exactly what the remedies against anything that harmed them and the State were; do we still know these remedies? The people reacted slowly and calculatingly to all kinds of stimuli with a purposeful slowness which long caution and care had built up through the years; do we still display caution and care? The people avoided corrupt practices to gain wealth and knew how to avoid when avoiding was necessary, do we still avoid corrupt practices? The people were not concerned with a holy image because they lived it and all they aspired for was to gain wisdom and live according to a strict code – they were what people saw them to be, are we still what we see them to be? A “Yes” to these answers would mean we can still find leaders, a “No” would mean our search is in vain.
Our institutions – religious, educational and political – are no longer fit for what they were intended: everyone is unanimous about that. The fault however is not with them but in us. Today’s generation, both leaders and common man, have abused the institutions but since abuse does not do away with the use, we still look up to these institutions regardless of the imperfect manifestations that are so prominent in priest, educator and politician respectively. We have lost the instincts for which the institutions were created and are losing the institutions themselves. The blame for this is on democracy because democracy has always focused on the mediocre. It has brought mediocrity to the fore. It is obvious that all sense has gone out of our leaders due to modernity. The rationale behind every institution lies in the responsibility of the men that head it; for now, our leaders are all limping and if they continue in this fashion they will sooner or later become lame. And that is something that everyone fears.
There is an old axiom – “Good times make weak men,
Weak men make hard times,
Hard times make strong men,
Strong men make good times”
Ponder on this cyclic phenomenon – hopefully it will ensure that good strong men will once again lead us – nothing is in vain so long as we try.
