Not so long ago, elections were fought on the merits and demerits of an ideology. Today, an election can be won on the projected humility of “we are simple people” or on claims to solve problems of daily living. Over-simplification seems to sell
There are few phases in human evolution where change is not just symbolic but seminal. To capture the first is easy because it involves tokenism and has external indicators. To understand the second is central to all acts of Homo sapiens. This is because, if that phase is not consciously worked upon, it passes unnoticed and a great opportunity is lost.
The times that we live in are essentially of the second variety. It’s not just the hauling down of one flag and hoisting of another. A new global order, both at micro and macro levels, is in the making. The contours seem to be shifting and the contents are not always clear. The patterns are variegated and difficult to map. This is happening with reference to inter-generational relationships, the nature of business, the pattern of financial transactions, frameworks of governance, gender relationships, currency usage, territorial delineation, styles of living, modes of communication, digitisation of time, search for identity, leadership patterns, logic of aggregation.
The Indian scene is especially complex. No where in the world do so many centuries co-exist together as they do in India. From pre-historic modes of production to the space age in its bloom, can all be found in Bharat. Change in such an environment, therefore, means a myriad things to myriads of people. Some have a level of comfort with status quo, others want to move from one level to the other.
No individual has an isolated life. What is required in the act of living is to go along with others. This involves recognising that we need each other and must adapt our aspirations with those with whom one has to lead shared lives. The art lies in knowing with whom one has to share one’s life and for how long.
These questions are not easy to answer. They are even more difficult to operationalise. Such a situation is contributing to a almost universal sense of restlessness and a state of anxiety in recognising the inevitability of the present. We have not even begun to address these questions because we have not formulated them with clarity.
Running an organisation in such a context is an act of courage, embedded in unpredictable outcomes. The organisational man and organisational theorist grapple with this reality to understand how many organisations fail while others sail along and few succeed.
A new world view is emerging. Not so long ago, elections were fought on the merits and demerits of an ideology. Today, an election can be won on a projected humility of “we are simple people” or some notion of corruption or problems of daily living. Over simplification seems to sell.
A little over a decade ago a political party of this country went through a debate on what works better — ideology or strategy. For a time it seemed that ideology mattered only to a few. A number of the participants were happy to align with strategy. It enabled wielding of power.
It is not clear if that debate holds true today. The last 20 years of national evolution have shown that even the basic tenants of constitutions are evoked selectively as per political exigencies and with almost little or no serious application or adherence to the collective principles. The Constitution talks of a sovereign, democratic, socialist and secular republic. Even parties whose name contains the concept of socialism do not evoke it anymore!
The contradictions are many, the confusions are large. The act of fumbling along cannot be rarified into a principle. The time has come for clarity in everything. It should begin in the act of governance. The clutter needs to be cleared.