Rahul Gandhi and the state of the nation

So I have had separate conversations with some of my friends, regarding the current state of affairs in the country. I wanted to bring this discussion into 1 forum to engage alternative ideas or thoughts you guys might have.

I asked one of them why he thought Rahul Gandhi, according to him, is the leader of the future. The gist of his reasoning was that there is a dearth of leadership in the country, all positions of power are occupied by old corrupt politicians irrespective of the party and that "finally after Jawaharlal Nehru, he is the first Gandhi/Nehru who has some credentials to lead".

This last reason is my biggest point of contention and frankly, it shocks me that someone who seemingly is educated and politically and socially aware, has bought into this Rahul-baba love-fest. And that to me is a scary phenomena especially when responsible citizens who have the intelligence to be self-aware and the ability to make objective rationale decisions are beginning to aspire for leadership of a country of 2 billion under a complete non-entity who's only claim to prominence is being born in a dynasty that holds some mass (ignorant) appeal amongst the poor and a entourage of spineless old corrupt sidekicks who keep the prominence and the fascination for the fair skin - alive. Rahul Gandhi has absolutely no leadership skills, no educational qualifications (if that is a criteria at all), no credibility, no political acumen - all he has is a luxury of being propelled to prominence by his mothers coterie (the likes of Pranab Mukherjee, Digvijay Singh etc) and shielded by them - while every single one of those leaders starting with Sonia Gandhi, reeks of corruption and illegal funds stacked away in foreign accounts.

So granted that India has a dearth of leadership. Granted that there is a total failure in fair governance. Granted that most current leaders are old schools and corrupt. But are these reasons to even consider RG as an alternative? Why? Only because he is 'young' , 'charismatic' and comes with 'fresh eyes and perspective'? Where is your objective thinking?? If those were the criteria to become a leader, then why not 'Amitabh Bachhan' or 'Rajnikanth'? I'm sure they have so much more charisma and mass appeal. And probably cleaner records than RG.

According to this friend of mine, it is a sad state of affairs when a country has no role models and have to look up to someone like Anna Hazare for inspiration.

So here's my take - So what if the youth of India are inspired by the likes of Anna Hazare? Why does that, according to you, make it a "sad state of affairs" in the country? Is it because Anna Hazare does not come across as your typical 'charismatic', 'well-dressed', 'well-spoken' 'well-educated', idea of a leader? And that he is 74 years old? How different is this than the Sarah Palin politics of personalities? Is that what your understanding of 'good leadership' is? What is this obsession of individuals as opposed to ideologies?

There are multiple issues in the state of the nation. Governance, corruption, dearth of political intent with both politicians and people, a state of inertia, decline of nationalism, lack of rationale and objective thinking, etc etc. And at many levels. The solution is not a 'set of items' or lies with a 'set of people'. It has its own lifecycle and will emerge from within society. However, I think, our responsibility within that evolution is to atleast gather our facts and inform ourselves to make intelligent objective decisions.

I am attaching a few articles, posts, discussions from the net that provide an alternative perspective. Some of these may be dramatic or may take a diagonal trajectory (Subramanian Swamy discussions), but then again I trust our rationale reasoning to extract facts and form an unbiased informed opinion. This is my attempt to create some sort of awareness about some people or ideologies that may soon dictate the future of our country.

1. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=227534350606920
This comes across a tirade and could have been compiled or written in a more effective way - but a good compilation nevertheless.

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAY7pxWf4Do
One of many videos of Subramanian Swamy on the internet. I by no way am endorsing him nor agree with everything he says. But I think he is an intelligent man with some interesting opinions. The video is from a local gathering so its not slick, but if you can get by the initial boredom, it does pick up. Look out for part-2 and any subsequent parts on YouTube.

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84fkL6yB1X8
This is a much better speech from New York.

4. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/116529/mao-gujarat.html
Really good article by journalist M.J.Akbar

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CHcKlIsvAQ
Arvind Kejriwal - An IIT'ian, he is also part of the India Against Corruption organization (the Anna Hazare group). He comes across as intelligent, articulate and with good political acumen, cause and intent.

Barkha Dutt

Barkha Dutt – an icon of Indian broadcast media, a padma shri recipient and a 'war reporter' is a journalist I have grown to despise. She symbolizes the new breed of sensationalism that has become synonymous with much of the what passes off as 'news' in India.

Reporting is almost always melodramatic, ridden with emotional outbursts with no structure or thought given to the rapid diarrhoea of words during interviews and live reporting. This was most apparent during the Bombay terror attacks when victims and hostages are posed with plain daft and platitudinous questions such as "How do you feel? Are you distraught?". While this is the general quality of reporting, I find it amusing that reporters like Barkha Dutt are made out to be an exception to this wider incompetence, when in fact she is merely part of the pack, the only difference being that she participates in the trend with a conceited confidence. Objectivity is non-existent and live television is an opportunity to have emotional (read loud) outbursts of 'disaster' rhetoric, incoherent reports, garish on-screen chyrons, all of this synchronized with distasteful manufactured dramatic music.

As a native from Mumbai, I take pride in the sheer resilience of its people. It has been tested several times in the past through the '93 bombings, the communal riots, the deluge and the intermittent bombings. Yet, there is an inherent normalcy in the chaos that allows it to resurface almost immediately and move on. They define a new normal.

Yet, it amuses me to see all the news channels crying out "disaster" from their screens in their attempt to ruffle rationality and composure. Headlines like 'Warzone Mumbai', 'India at War', 'Another 9-11', 'Terror in India' makes every other tragedy in the past, however significant and catastrophic, seem inconsequential in a desperate attempt to log the maximum viewership of the day. It belittles personal tragedies and loses focus from the more important issues such as the absence of a response strategy or the vacuum of a command structure. Yet, Barkha Dutt and her breed of journalists choose to hound airtime and attention in an attempt to patronize their personal style of journalism and reporting, a profession that once used to pride itself for its objectivity and content.