What we want to be
The still illusive idea of an inclusive India requires a shared vision with more substance and less slogans
This is the time to develop a unifying national vision behind which the people can rally to produce a country that all indians will be happy to live in and be proud of.
WHERE there is no vision, the people perish, says the Bible in the Old Testament. Moreover, as Dutch scholar Fred Polak explains, nations with a profound vision of their future succeed even when they do not have the right resources or an obvious strategic advantage. In his book, The Image of the Future, he traces the histories of Greece, Rome, Spain, France, England, and the US and shows that a positive image of their own future preceded these nations successes. Their visions guided the actions of people, leading on to the nations achievements. What is the vision of India shared by its people?
Effective leaders know that just as a strategy is useless unless it is implemented, a vision statement, no matter how well phrased, is of no consequence if it does not motivate action by people. Therefore, the quality of the process by which a vision is shared and adopted by people is as important for the success of the enterprise as the content of the vision developed by its leaders. Hence the critical question for Indias leaders is how can a shared vision be developed for such a large and diverse country? Let us consider some insights from the experience of other nations and from research into the role of vision in producing transformational change.
One thing is clear. The architecture of any process, including the way a shared vision is developed, must fit the structure of the social organisation. In an organisation in which the power to impose decisions is centralised, a vision may be developed at the top and then shared with the people. On the other hand, where power is distributed across the organisation and a central writ cannot be easily imposed, a shared vision must emerge from a participative process. The process by which Indias vision will emerge will be different to the way in which Singapore, and perhaps China, has developed its vision for its future.
Whereas until Independence, the people of India, though diverse, were united in a common quest for freedom from an occupying power, and whereas subsequently, for many years, the political party that had rallied the people towards independence continued to dominate the political scene, the country is now becoming increasingly decentralised. Power is being devolved, by design, even to Indias villages. Regional political parties are gaining strength. Coalitions are necessary to establish governments at the Centre, and even in many states. Caste-based parties are growing. And other differences are also becoming accentuated in the public discourse, such as those based on access to economic opportunity India versus Bharat, and rural versus urban.
Amidst this democratic cacophony, various formations, some political, others economic, are competing for their vision of the future of the country to prevail. It is always easier to sell a negative vision one that is based on fear of an enemy against which a leader can rally people. Thus the neo-Cons in the US were able to propel George Bush and the Republican Party into a very
powerful position against the Democrats by exaggerating the threats from the so-called Axis of Evil.
powerful position against the Democrats by exaggerating the threats from the so-called Axis of Evil.
Meanwhile the Democrats have struggled to offer a more compelling positive vision. If the Republicans had not shot themselves in the foot in Iraq, the Democrats would have continued to struggle in the electoral races. The Democrats are a party in search of a notion according to Michael Tomasky, editor of the liberal journal, The American Prospect. They offer change. But cannot agree on change to what.
In a country like India, with many internal differences, it is tempting for leaders to rally support for themselves by exaggerating internal threats. Raj Thackerays recent actions in Maharashtra are not the first and will not be the last of such divisive movements. Such divisive strategies may get local leaders votes to win their elections. But they also make it imperative for national leaders to find a larger vision to unify the entire country.
Into that heaven of freedom, O Father, let my country awake, was Rabindranath Tagores prayer for India. Tagore was not talking about freedom from colonial masters. The heaven of freedom for him was a country not broken into fragments by narrow domestic walls. And one in which everyones head is held high. His vision was of a country in which, from its eastern to its western, and northern to southern extremities, very diverse people can feel they are part of one country with one destiny. And he was envisioning a country in which every last Indian, as Gandhi said after him, could lead his or her life in dignity. We are far from realising those visions.
Business leaders and investors want stability, security, and fewer internal walls to impede trade. Therefore, they should have a great interest in bringing competing political and social factions together to produce a unifying vision. When South Africa was torn asunder by apartheid and its economy shattered by sanctions in the early 1990s, the business community took a lead in providing a neutral platform for the antagonistic political formations to come together and consider the countrys future. Through that process, the participants obtained insights into the forces that would shape the country and enable it to emerge as a respected member of the international community, which it has. The process produced some remarkable images of what the future of South Africa could be. These visions of South Africa were used to engage people across the country with an aspirational vision for their future.