So these days media are giving far too much attention to the austerity drive of the Congress Party. What began as an expectation of all ministers (as said by Pranob Mukherji) ended up being an expectation of only Congress MPs. Of course, the likes of Rahul Gandhi did endorse the whole idea and followed it up by actually practicing it by traveling in a train. So did Madam Sonia, who traveled in an economy class. However, there were the likes of Shashi Tharoor who got some unsolicited publicity with their cattle-class controversy.Be that as it may, are the media going overboard? There have been series of discussions and debates on the issue. One wonders whether so much precious time should be wasted on an ordinary subject as this. Is it not a personal choice of people, as expressed by a panelist on NDTV? The larger issue, ac
cording to many thinkers, is the widespread corruption which is far greater an evil than anything else bogging down this country.
Nevertheless, some feel that our leaders must set an example for people. They must lead by example in being austere and simple, even if they have excessive wealth. Others feel this is sheer hypocrisy. One needs to question how our leaders are able to afford luxurious residences and travel. All that is, no doubt, a reflection of wealth amassed thorough unjust means. That is, of course, a serious issue to address. You are trying to save a pie and gobble up a shark. It looks ridiculous. Media do not seem to be addressing this issue adequately. Their whole concentration seems to be to make a mockery of the austerity drive and laugh at those who have thought of it. They are not so much concerned about the melee eating into the vitals of our political system. They consider the austerity drive as tokenism. Fine. But if a leader is sincere, media have the responsibility to recognise it. There have been several leaders who are practicing austerity much before the whole issue came for discussion and debate. There is no hypocrisy there. These leaders know that they need to be people’s servants and not bosses.
It is true that austerity becomes ridiculous when our leaders have so much wealth. here are others who might even argue that if our leaders are able to perform and can deliver, no one really needs to care about their austerity. But even when one has wealth one can consciously choose to be austere. One may be rich; but the question is whether one can feel with the life situation of common people. Can he/she be as simple and humble like simple people?
Should leaders be austere? Should they set an example to their people? The answer lies in how a leader approaches his/her position? If he/she thinks that being leader is to be superior and domineering, then austerity does not sound good. But if a leader considers himself/herself a representative of common people, austerity, though symbolic, can definitely be a path to connect with the masses.
cording to many thinkers, is the widespread corruption which is far greater an evil than anything else bogging down this country.Nevertheless, some feel that our leaders must set an example for people. They must lead by example in being austere and simple, even if they have excessive wealth. Others feel this is sheer hypocrisy. One needs to question how our leaders are able to afford luxurious residences and travel. All that is, no doubt, a reflection of wealth amassed thorough unjust means. That is, of course, a serious issue to address. You are trying to save a pie and gobble up a shark. It looks ridiculous. Media do not seem to be addressing this issue adequately. Their whole concentration seems to be to make a mockery of the austerity drive and laugh at those who have thought of it. They are not so much concerned about the melee eating into the vitals of our political system. They consider the austerity drive as tokenism. Fine. But if a leader is sincere, media have the responsibility to recognise it. There have been several leaders who are practicing austerity much before the whole issue came for discussion and debate. There is no hypocrisy there. These leaders know that they need to be people’s servants and not bosses.
It is true that austerity becomes ridiculous when our leaders have so much wealth. here are others who might even argue that if our leaders are able to perform and can deliver, no one really needs to care about their austerity. But even when one has wealth one can consciously choose to be austere. One may be rich; but the question is whether one can feel with the life situation of common people. Can he/she be as simple and humble like simple people?
Should leaders be austere? Should they set an example to their people? The answer lies in how a leader approaches his/her position? If he/she thinks that being leader is to be superior and domineering, then austerity does not sound good. But if a leader considers himself/herself a representative of common people, austerity, though symbolic, can definitely be a path to connect with the masses.
