POST OR INDIVIDUAL- WHICH IS GREATER?

Men may come and men may go but the system goes on forever is oft repeated statement in many organisations. The question is whether the man makes the system or the system makes the man. Undoubtedly, no person is indispensable but is it the chair that makes the man or the man who graces the seat who lends it credibility is a question which needs to be deliberated upon with more seriousness than it has been conferred upon.

The recent demise of Shri I K Gujral sent me back to my childhood days. A person born in the Indira era, I distinctly remember that the term "PM" on the pages of the newspaper meant nothing more than Indira Gandhi at least to me. The emergency and its aftermath held us in her awe with little realisation of what was going around. On the backlash in 1977, it took us sometime to reconcile that PM could mean someone else. Evidently, the Government was more preoccupied in managing its diversities and overcoming its penchant for opposition that it collapsed. The authority of a PM was personified by Indira which she herself lost in her tenure in the eighties. Same was the case of Thatcher who captured the imagination of the public with her Falkland war. Touted to be a grocer's daughter, her firm action enthralled our young minds.

During our college days, the terms of Rajiv, Benazir and Gorbachev were critically analysed. This was followed by the practical Chandrashekhar, the Chanakya of Indian politics, Narasimha Rao who etched a place in history. The imprints left by leaders such as George Fernandes and I K Gujral were no less though they were contrasting personalities. The balancing act and the oratorial skills of Vajpayee left us spellbound. Soon it became clear that each person brought something to the post. The case would be well driven on citing the example of T N Seshan, the man who made the Election Commission an institution to reckon with.

Evidently, they occupied the post with grace and discharged their duties in the manner which is distinct to only themselves. It is for this reason the British held that the post was occupied by a person and did not allow the person to manipulate his office. Today, we have misconceived notions amongst the public in general and the persons holding office in particular. They believe that they are the posts. For example if X is holding the post of a Collector, it is stated that the X is the Collector which is incorrect. Instead of this if one were to accept that X was discharging his duty as a Collector and would move on then it would make him more objective in his subjective approach. He would only lend his elegant touch rather than believe he is law. Corruption could be battled and there would be a reprieve for the common man.

Let us therefore begin in small measure by stating that X is elected to the post of CM or PM rather than state that X is CM or PM. A small step by the media will go a long way in imprinting this fact in the psyche of the people leading to a major revolution in the thought process. In short let us separate the post and the individual. We may honour an individual for his diligent discharge of duties of a particular post but do not deem him to be the post. Will this happen?