Former bureaucrat and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s inability to take charge, as Gajendra Singh committed suicide, points to weaknesses in India’s steel frame
The suicide of Gajendra Singh Kalyanwat, a farmer from Dausa, who had come to attend the Aam Aadmi Party’s rally at Jantar Mantar was not something that has occurred for the first time. The last of such a tragedy was on March 26, 2012 when a Tibetan activist, Jamphel Yeshi, put himself on fire to protest the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao. As many as 3,00,000 farmers, at the very least, have committed suicide in the past two decades in this country and that works out to an average of 41 deaths per day.
Farmers committing suicide is not just a national tragedy but a national shame. And there has not been one amongst us, who has not, in his own way, contributed to it, through our ignorance, callousness or greed. More than worrying about a membership at the UN Security Council or a seat at any other high table, Prime Minister Narendra Modi would do his reputation much good, if he personally took over the leadership of a nationwide programme to deal with this socio-economic malaise of gargantuan proportions.
It is sad that leadership qualities are not what our political leaders are known for, or for that matter capable of, barring the odd exception, who slip through the party hierarchy and reach a position of influence and cannot be thrown out. Neither Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi nor CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury, or for that matter, the other dozen odd politicians who quickly made their way to pay their respects to Singh, have displayed any leadership qualities in this regard.
For example, Mr Gandhi was busy abroad when a farmer in his constituency committed suicide. He made it to the hospital after Singh’s suicide but is yet to catch up with those struck by a similar tragedy in his own constituency. Does the dichotomy strike Mr Gandhi that if he had reflected at his palatial residence in Delhi instead of going abroad, vast quantities of foreign exchange utilised for his upkeep in those 56 days, wherever it may have come from, would have better served those very people, he so keenly wishes to supportIJ
lack of leadership quality among the political class is still understandable, given that our kind of electoral politics requires either rabble-rousers and fixers or those with impeccable dynastic credentials. Ours is not an environment where either leadership qualities can be nurtured, or for that matter, developed through appropriate training. However, what came as a real shock was Mr Arvind Kejriwal's response to the incident.
Mr Kejriwal was on record stating that he saw that the individual was about to commit an untoward act. Instead of taking charge and attempting to connect with the unfortunate Singh, as any individual with a modicum of sense would have done, he could only ask the police to act. And, this man has wants to lead this country! Would you want him in control of our nuclear assetsIJ this writer shudders to think of the consequences.
But what’s really alarming is not Mr Kejriwal's inability to take command over the situation, but the fact that lakhs of taxpayers' money has been expended on his education at the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur, his selection to the Indian Revenue Service, his training at the Indian Administrative Service academy and at the academy for Direct Taxes and even in his promotion to the rank of Joint Commissioner. While Mr Kejriwal may be an odd case, it certainly does not reflect well on the selection process and training methodology used for those who, supposedly represent, the ‘steel frame of India’.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a consultant with the Observer Research Foundation)