The Hindu Business Line : Avoidable foibles

PERSONAGES in authority in India are susceptible to a weakness not found in their counterparts in developed countries — at least, not in such a pronounced fashion.

Justices and Ministers here are prone to be indiscriminate in accepting invitations for public functions not all of which can be said to be either connected with their duties or any public cause, or having any notable significance.

In countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US, one hardly sees the head of state or government, Ministers or Secretaries, inaugurating ventures by private bodies or a bridge, a building and the like. I was in Italy when the huge railway terminus in Rome was renovated with state-of-the-art facilities; it was a major event by any standards.

It quietly got going without any fanfare or trumpet and the President or Prime Minister or even the Public Works Minister was nowhere around. Similar was the case with Washington Metro, a historic first.

There was no fuss, no bash wasting everybody's time. It would be advisable for Ministers in India too to be extremely choosy about lending their presence and attend only functions of national importance.

Another foible is the tendency on the part of Ministers to confine their interest and attention only to the constituencies, or at the most, the States, from which they have been elected. Once an MP or MLA becomes a Minister, he should become a broadband personality, devoting himself to the problems and issues concerning every State.

In the last 20 years so, it has become rare to come across a Minister who regards himself as belonging to the whole nation. Nowadays, a Minister is mostly seen paying frequent visits to his own State and focussing on schemes there. An extreme example was Mr Ghani Khan Choudhury, who never lifted his sight above Malda.

One reason for this is that most Ministers are uncomfortable with English. They find it easier holding discussions with functionaries in their own States in their native language. Another reason is that they feel there is nothing to be gained by spending time elsewhere in terms of electoral prospects, which are all that matter to them.

The result is that people of other States hardly get to interact with Central Ministers holding portfolios of importance to them, if they do not happen to be "native sons". The Ministers too are unable to develop a national outlook and continue to be no more than frogs in the well.

B. S. Raghavan