Where is Lalu?

Glimpses of HT Leadership Summit 2008 on television channel (mainly CNN-IBN) and newspapers clearly reflect an elitist character. I will talk about who’s who and son-in-laws and daughters and husbands at this moment. I am beginning with the leaders first. Those who spoke yesterday were Manmohan Siingh, Sonia Gandhi, Cherie Blair, Lalu Yadav, Chandra Babu Naidu, Jerry Linenger, Nayan Chanda, Gary Samore, Vali Nasr, Karl Inderfurth, and L K Advani. I hope all of us and ‘the common man’ knows about Manmohan Singh, Sonia, Lalu, Naidu and Advani – the ‘netas’ in common parlance. Others are ‘leaders’. I think it’s the same difference as that of ‘Bharat’ and ‘India’. I will also dissect the introductions of the ‘leaders’, the common people doesn’t know them but later, towards the end.

Let me first deal with the title ‘Lalu misses the lead’. I am saying this after looking at the headlines of Hindustan Times and its centre-spread on the summit. Those who have made it to the front page with photo and larger space are: Sonia – a never before picture of Sonia Gandhi – smiling at full throttle. Manmohan Singh and Advani have their sketches and Lalu has his face alongside a small quote. Advani and Manmohan Singh have found space for what they said there on both sides of photographs. Lalu misses here. Then come to the centre-spread. Lalu has find a place here as a ‘wit machine’ – that’s what he is known for and that’s what he does everywhere. There is no harm in it rather it is a quality our leaders miss today. But why only the wit part of Lalu gets highlighted? Where is the leader in Lalu finds mention? Yes he finds mention with Naidu, but heading is what Naidu said, not what Lalu said. What he said about Rahul Gandhi and which finds prominent mention in other newspapers (IE, ToI, Hindu) is written at the end of a little piece. It did not get highlighted and not been put in quotes even. HT can translate and put in quotes what Lalu said about Raj Thackeray, on politicians turning authors and all other things, but it can’t put in quotes what he said about Rahul Gandhi and and why didn’t they hinghlight even a little what he said about Rahul Gandhi? It,s their own editorial decision, but we can at least question and comment on it. Why has not HT mentioned about Lalu’s comment where he has compared him to Mahatma? It’s more a political question, which involves serious (!) issues like political economy of media, and it’s objectivity. Lets not get into it at this stage.

Another point about this is that they need a ‘hansod’, a joker between them, who should be a politician too and which gives them authenticity that they have a fair representation. Lalu fits well in this place. Lalu replied in Hindi though there were many foreigners and many ABCDs types. And it’s their compulsion that they have to listen to him – whatever his style, content and medium is. This is what Lalu is. This is what Indian democracy is about. I am not praising Lalu or justifying his brand of politics. (I think it echoes “janta ki abe paltaniya, to hille re jhakjhor duniya”

Doon’t misunderstand me for another revolution…but just some stray thoughts). But what is not their compulsion is their print edition. Where they can edit the way it suits them. They have almost warded him off from the front page, they have not published his comment on Rahul and they have shown him on the sides in a smaller picture. Even pictures of ‘wheeler-dealers’ like Suhel Seth and Salman Khurshid; Robert Vadhera and Murli Deora; and Rajeev Shukla and Naveen Jindal have found a prominent position than Lalu on the page. This is where we know whose conclave it is and what is the nature. I may be sounding against it but I am not. I rather propose more such conclaves and spaces where our leaders can interact with each other and they could be asked questions. That’s what is necessary for the health of our democracy. But think a little about the distinctiveness of people who have been termed as leaders and who gets invited to places like this.

Just think about Robert Vadhera . Who is he? His only qualification (read major!) is him being the husband of Priyanka Gandhi. I could say that we are becoming like Americans where the whole family gets the status of first family and even the pups find mention in speeches. Are we really like that? Or our leaders of the freedom movement have tried instilling a false sense of democratic values in us in those days and later through the Constitution. Who will lead us or represent us is a question we should more serious about now. I also oppose ‘poster parties’ like Jago Party and like that of Shiv Khera’s. They mock our democratic traditions and institutions and try to hijack it through advertisements. But irony is that they are also part of these same democratic solutions. HT mentions that Lalu talks about JP’s famous ‘right-to-recall’ becoming true in the falling of governments in coalition politics. Is that the interpretation that we all want to believe? Again, I am not in praise of Lalu but we have to think about the nature of leadership we are building up. In ‘we’ I count the media and all those who could objectively make sense of the facts.

Now, the difference between our ‘netas’ and ‘leaders’. Neta is typically a ‘politico’ in our common parlance, but ‘leader’ which is a creation of, I don’t know whom? I think I should write more about it in the next post.