“A valid criticism of the profession of politics in India is that it is not professional enough – that the majority of its practitioners have not done their home work. Few political parties in this country have made independent studies in the fields of education, health, housing, foreign affairs, finance, etc. Their programmes are not backed up by adequate research.”
MAY 9, 1967
A peculiar profession
REPLYING TO THE WELL-DESERVED TRIBUTES PAID TO HIM for his services to the nation as President of the Union, Dr. Radhakrishnan has appealed to politicians to give more weight to service and humility and less to prestige and power. The duty of the good politician, he said, was to alleviate the sufferings of the people and raise their material standards. It must be admitted that of late the political scene has been marred by unseemly contests for power and place. Mudslinging has replaced orderly debate and the demonstrations organised by ambitious politicians, both of the right and the left. At the same time, there are indications that politics is gradually becoming a profession, rather than a crusade for social and political reform. While, at one time, the majority of politicians were well-to-do lawyers and land-owners, they are now drawn from all ranks of society and much closer to the people whom they represent. As a profession, politics does not demand special academic qualifications, although lack of formal education is now the exception rather than the rule as compared with the position a decade ago.
The training of the professional politician is gained mainly in local government bodies and now that there is a ladder rising from the panchayat to the samiti, the Zilla parishad and State Assembly up to the Central Parliament, the profession is not confined to the urbaneducated person, though he still has the advantage over his country cousin. Long years of apprenticeship at the lower levels are necessary before the average politician can hope to reach the seat of power and influence. While he has to demonstrate to the people his capacity to render services to them, he has also to be skilled in the art of what has been called one-upmanship. The politician has always been blamed for putting the interests of his party first, but this criticism may be misconceived if it is conceded that each party adheres to a programme which is supposed to promote the national interest. But if the politician deserts his party in his own interests, he is not to be commended. As in most other professions, there is a service aspect as well as power aspect. A politician who is not ambitious is not likely to get very far. His integrity, no doubt, depends on the methods he uses. It is always easier and more profitable to cater to special interests than to work for the benefit of the underprivileged masses. But it is the latter who have the bulk of the votes and the politician who becomes identified with a privileged group is heading for defeat at the polls. A valid criticism of the profession of politics in India is that it is not professional enough – that the majority of its practitioners have not done their homework. Few political parties in this country have made independent studies in the fields of education, health, housing, foreign affairs, finance etc. Their programmes are not backed up by adequate research. This gives those parties who hold the reins of power an immense advantage, since they have at their disposal the information provided by the government departments. In a democratic set-up, the politician must know what the people want, but he must also have the data on which he can outline schemes to satisfy the needs of the people.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I