Maulana Wahiduddin Khan I The Speaking Tree I February 15, 2015

Democracy is a highly evolved form of government and it is fortunate that India has adopted it just as some others have. But, it requires great wisdom to avail properly the boon of democracy for it to be in the best interests of the people.

In a democracy, if you win one term in office after the elections and your concern becomes to also win the second term, then you will 'lose' both terms. That is, you will fail to avail of the opportunities presented by the current term, because your sights will be set on winning the future term.

A historical example illustrates the point. Charles de Gaulle became the President of France in 1959. At that time, France was the problem country of Europe. The French leadership needed to take some bold decisions to give a fresh boost to their homeland. However, this decision was a risky one for the government, as there was the fear of losing the next term. De Gaulle set himself the target of availing of the opportunities of his first term by ignoring the second term. He took several bold decisions, as a result of which he lost the second term. But, it was because of his initiatives that France later emerged as a new, strong country.

In present-day India, the sphere of education and employment is vitiated by favouritism. But if the government in power were to take decisions which were merit-based instead of favour-based, the class of people who reaped benefits from the favour culture might become discontented, thus making the government's second term doubtful. But, the result would certainly be the coming of a new culture in India, which would usher in an age of quality education and services. Thus, a process of sound development would be initiated.

[Highlight1]

India's basic problem is the lack of quality in education, services and administration. The only reason for this is favouritism, which inevitably thrives at the cost of quality. This policy may benefit some individuals, but because of it the nation as a whole suffers. Quality in work comes into evidence when everything is based on merit. Those who make the second term their concern will only take popular decisions. But, one whose concern is the nation will take realistic decisions.

The issue facing Indian democracy is not who won the elections. Rather, the losers should willingly accept defeat, while the winners should make the availing of present opportunities their sole concern. In such a situation, the present party may lose the second term, but because of its efforts, the country will have been set in motion along the path of progress.

In developed countries, the principle of 'compete or perish' works in every field. 'Compete or perish' is not a negative concept. In fact, it means 'stand up through competition and save the nation from perishing.'

When the government takes bold decisions, certain people may have to suffer. But, the person who suffers today will develop a strong intention to achieve his goals as a result of his suffering. Thus, tomorrow, as an achiever, he will be able to rise. Development never comes in the total sense. Thus, whenever there is development, there will, at the same time, be the voicing of complaints or grievances, which have to be dealt with. Otherwise, the process of development will come to a standstill. The concern of democratic administrators should be the nation rather than the immediate wishes of the voter community. The real issue for them must be whether or not the nation is moving towards holistic development in the long-term.