User:Jai Hndustani

= Jitendra Kumar Ojha =

An Independent Indian Political Thinker
Jitendra Kumar Ojha @ Jitendra Kumar is an independent thinker and analyst on democracy, governance, geopolitics and national security. He is also a powerful public speaker and a leadership coach. He has shared several innovative ideas on a series of subjects both through web as well as through lectures. In one of the write ups on his blog he states: "We as people and society in our times have enormous potential to.... enhance the quality of our existence, productivity and ability to collaborate and compete with each other. A more secure, harmonious and stable world is certainly possible where each can have a better all round existence as well as be in a more harmonious relationship with our respective  societies and external world beyond that. The other alternative is a catastrophic destruction with easier access to destructive technologies in the context of increasing space for conflict and eroding capability of institutions to address these." He promises to come out with some innovative ideas to improve quality of governance in democracies.

Personal and professional details
He is approximately 50 years of age. He has served in civil service of India for over 26 years. He has served as Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary in Government of India. He has also served as diplomat in High Commission of India London and and other embassies of India. He last held the post of Joint Secretary. He was also a student political leader and activist during his younger days before joining civil service. He earned his undergraduate degree in Politics from Presidency College, Kolkata and post graduate and M. Phil degree from Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is also an alumnus of National Defence College, New Delhi during which he earned another research degree in Defence and strategic studies.

Views on Democracy

Jitendra Kumar Ojha has come out with a series of interesting ideas on democracy and governance. in one of his write-ups, he states: ''“Democracy” has travelled a long way from its medieval era ideals of minimal government interference and natural rights espoused by ‘social contract’ philosophers like Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau. Libertarian goals of freedom of speech, thought and expression as espoused by John Stuart Mill and others or the Bentham’s concept of ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ or so many similar ideas on democracy and Justice explained philosophers like Tocqueville, Rawls, Schumpeter or Putnam etc cannot explain contemporary understanding of Democracy entirely. Even Abraham Lincoln's  description of democracy as ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’ appears inadequate to describe democracy in our times or at least the popular expectations from it. The idea of democracy has gradually evolved to a stage, at least in the model societies, where people expect their government, elected through a process of free and fair polls on the basis of universal adult suffrage, and supported by a large number of professionally managed autonomous institutions, to provide an optimally secure, egalitarian society with equitable access to economic opportunities and uniform access to ‘Rule of Law’. Democracies in different parts of the world are able to provide these to varying extents, depending upon the level of their evolution and maturity. At the same time, most democracies, both in developed and developing world,  are struggling to  address different forms of distortions and challenges, which threaten the very future of democracy as the most desirable  form of government."''

He goes on to add: '' "Democracy in our times has different meanings in different contexts or societies for different people. In many parts of the developing world, it may just be a process of election and some degree of media freedom with some semblance of rule of law like mechanism, which need not be consistently and uniformly upheld. Whereas in some of the advanced democracies, it may be a comprehensive charter of obligations to ensure universal access to optimally good conditions for life. Financial elite in most countries, may interpret democracy as freedom to pursue their business and commercial interests with minimum interference, or if possible all the support from  state apparatus both within and beyond the country. In certain cases, it may simply be opportunity to navigate to greater wealth without being questioned or restrained. For political elite it seems all the  opportunity to pursue political power, or if possible, unbridled power without any institutional interference. For media and civil society groups, it may mean anything depending upon their orientation, from influence, name, clout or in certain societies even easy wealth. Masses may different expectations. From economic security to transparent public services. However, the lowest common denominator would be all round security to live with dignity where state defends individuals from both internal and external threats besides providing fair and reasonable opportunities. Elections and public accountability appear the best route to ensure such a system and hence these are integral features of democracy which are now upheld through elaborate structures of representative government".''

On the evolution of modern representative democracy, he states: "''  Individual initiatives, ideas and leaderships have played crucial role in evolution of Democracy to its current stage. However, it has not been a uni linear, consistent and well-defined process. Democracy has come to this form of elaborate structures of representative institutions through an exercise  of continuous trial and refinement and yet we cannot say with certainty whether the existing structures and formats of Democracy, anywhere in the world, have reached their optimum capacity or these  are adequate to meet popular aspirations. Further, contemporary representative democracy, despite all its common essential features, also has certain distinct traits in almost every region and every part of the world. These have been shaped by local contexts including socio-economic and cultural realities. Consequently, in certain societies or socio-cultural milieu, democracy has advanced to provide a higher level of governance as well as social harmony, whereas in many others, it is still struggling to take firm roots. Those from democratic societies shall always find representative government with free press, individual freedom and autonomous judiciary as the most credible form of Government. Its imperfections and flaws may appear only as aberrations requiring remedial measures. Hence, it is important to analyse understanding of democracy in contemporary context."''

"''Democracy, at its most advanced stage of evolution, implies not merely selection of their representatives through popular choice but also a right to select the most suitable incumbents who can work without fear or hindrance in the collective interests of entire citizenry. The spirit and objectives of democracy gets defeated if people cannot select optimally good candidates who in turn are not able to create optimally good institutions. if elected representatives  are constrained in  discharging their legitimate responsibilities and fail to make a positive impact or  they can get away by working in the narrower interests of their party or a section of their constituents or even for their own individual benefits then spirit of democracy seems subverted.  Further, democratic political processes are expected to throw up wise men and women with integrity and commitment to represent people to optimise overall governance capacity of their society. Societies that have moved in this direction are certainly doing better than the rest. Political leadership requires not merely, capacity, skills and commitment to build institutions, but also broader acceptability and credibility to lead. In fragmented societies, where people divided on the basis of their identities - ethnic, linguistic, religious or social etc- probably it will be nearly impossible to have broadly acceptable leaders. If objective of democracy is to provide optimum choices to people to select the best possible government, the very  mobilisation of opinion in politics on these lines strikes at the roots of democracy, undermining their overall governance output. Hence, the threat to democracy from populism is something  that can potentially destroy institutions and create space for another form fascism or totalitarianism." This is particularly significant in view of percentage of criminals in many democracies including India.''

The same piece further states: ".........any society can grow and evolve optimally only to the extent that they synergise individual liberty, freedom and initiative with larger social or group interests. This has been one of the key strengths of democracy that drove societies in the developed Western countries to higher levels of economic, educational and scientific advancements. Authoritarian systems suppress individual liberties of overwhelming majority of the  people for the so-called larger social or collective interests. Democracies trust individuals to exercise their freedom in a manner that contributes to larger social interests, while preserving their own individual interests. This is easier said in theory than done in practice. There are areas of conflict too often and it is not always possible for state to intervene or interpret."

On Challenges facing Democracy:

Jitendra Ojha believes that democracy is facing a serious crises of credibility. Writing on his blog in June 2018, he stated: ''"Today, democracy as political system is facing one of the most serious crises of credibility. Its ability to afford universal access to all round security, justice and dignity has come in doubt. It shall be no exaggeration to claim that democracy has lost its direction. It does not appear to be a tool for harmonious all round material and moral advancement of people across all divides. As a political-governance system, it appears incapable of transforming itself or carry out a course correction. There is certainly a need for a much wider debate, with optimum level of integrity. Without deeply thought out initiatives, ideas and  endeavours, democracy appears unlikely to regain its capacity to facilitate harmonious and progressive evolution of societies and people. Democracy, ironically, despite all its flaws, is the only political system that still offers the biggest space for such initiatives from society. One wonders whether it is possible to point out a clear direction in which democracy needs to evolve and build a persuasive perspective for this purpose."''

He has further added: "''Democracy as a political and governance system appears to have distorted and degenerated. In its present form and shape, it appears incapable of addressing challenges of our time or optimising collective potential and output of people. The conflict between its values and practices has been gradually expanding. Competition in markets often turns in to war among a smaller minority and remaining often struggle to avoid irrelevance. Unregulated political competition in many contexts has turned into irreconcilable squabbles in pursuit of power, instead of pushing excellence in governance or empowering people with high quality options. Exploitation of contentious identities for political mobilisation pushes larger governance obligations on back-burner. Extreme inequality in democracies has a problem beyond moral indignation, especially in the current globalised and somewhat integrated world. It undermines productive capacities of societies by crippling individual capacity of large majority of people. Quality of cooperation, collaboration and even competition, that have provided thrust to accelerated advancement of human civilizations, are undermined. Inbuilt and institutionalized inequalities have always decapacitated societies. These destroy incentives for high quality efforts by people on both sides of the spectrum. In nutshell, such distortions in democracy are impeding optimal progress, output, harmony and collective security of people and societies.'' ''The current crisis of democracy is no longer confined to marginal shortfalls in its promises. In fact, barring a few exceptions, democracy as a political system seems to have lost the very direction and its trajectory of progressive evolution. In many cases, it is pushing societies towards steeper inequality, declining social mobility, deficient governance, erosion of probity in public life, increasing social fissures and mass anxiety along with routine miscarriages of justice. Institutional dysfunctionality in many of the established democracies is only a matter of degree. In past, many advanced civilizations and societies have declined or have suddenly decimated by their failure to detect and negotiate similar challenges and contradictions. Ramifications shall be much wider for decline and subversion of governance institutions in major democracies in the current technology-driven integrated world."''

On Future of Democracy

''Jitendra Ojha maintains that democracy has to continuously evolve but it must not be reckless evolution. He argues: "Conflicts, contradictions and gaps in societies, communities and institutions cannot be entirely eliminated but these can certainly be addressed better in pursuit of a more progressive evolution of societies. The normal dynamics of societies and markets have their own constraints and no major change is possible without a serious human endeavour. Any initiative for serious change is bound to face resistances, failures and even setbacks, which has always been part of a larger process of evolution. We must also acknowledge that every change may not lead to progress but almost every progress carries its own risks and costs. We are at a stage where democracy as an ideal, or form of governance, can neither afford a reckless distortion nor even stagnation. It has to chart out a newer course, towards universal and equitable access to all round security, dignity and opportunities for collective advancement and progress of societies. It has to envision and pursue a more universal concept of freedom, liberty and security based on optimum harmony within and among individuals, including larger society, as well as between human societies and nature.'' ''It is time for serious initiatives to refine governance goals and practices of democracy to instill greater integrity, credibility and harmony in the entire process. The current idea of democracy has gradually evolved over centuries in pursuit of addressing newer challenges and meeting newer requirements of people. Its journey has been driven by conscious human initiatives and endeavors of a few that found endorsement of the most. The idea of democracy or equitable to access to dignity and opportunity has also witnessed frequent phases of disruption, distortion and even sustained degeneration. As an ideal political and governance system, democracy must evolve continuously, moving forward - and not backward- in its journey to regain its credibility, vigour and universal appeal as well as capacity to fulfill its promises of an optimally fair, just and yet the most robust and progressive society"''

Identity Politics in South Asia
''In one of his write ups, he says: "When we talk of identity politics, and that too of a confrontational type, probably there would be few parallels than what we can visualise in the Indian sub-continent. These substantially vary in India, Pakistan and other South Asian countries depending upon the basic character of these societies and states. In secular and multi-cultural India, identity-politics has always been there but fairly subdued. Even these should not be tolerable given the original character of Indian civilization and outlook of modern Indian democracy. The partition of India must have been one of the most horrific episodes in the entire history of mankind driven by hatred for identity of large majority of non-Muslims in the sub-continent. Almost entire minority Hindu and Sikh population from newly created nation of Pakistan was either exterminated or forced out. In 1951, India had a registered number of over 14.5 million refugees from Pakistan, with actual numbers estimated to be much higher and reported deaths of over one million or more, mostly on the Western side of Pakistan. There were casualties, even though in few thousands of Muslims even on Indian side with total migration of nearly 0.65 million Muslims from North India to Pakistan, which too were certainly not acceptable for a secular India. However, steadfast commitment of India’s founding fathers to their secular vision of the nation and a particularly powerful Home Minister in Sardar Patel ensured that Muslims in India remained safe."'' These demonstrate that he is fiercely nationalist and proud of his Indian identity but at the same time he remains a committed secularist as well. He believes that a secular India is home to all.

On Dangers of Identity Politics

He goes on to emphasize the dangers of identity politics in following way: "Experience with history suggests that identity is integral to one’s existence and it is a highly emotive issue that defies any logic or rationale. Most people are least likely to compromise on it and even a perceived affront to one’s identity has potential to be interpreted as a personal attack. It can unify, substantial, if not most, members of a community or group. With sustained effort and under certain circumstances, it can be potentially used to generate even a mass hysteria that can be destructive not only for democracy but entire society. Most of the terror movements and organisations, varying from Zealots and Sicarii to Hashishins (Assassins) to modern day radical groups have been driven by aggravated levels of identity consciousness."

On Inequality in India

He is extremely critical of rising inequality levels in India. While writing about a seminar at Chatham House in 2018, he mentioned: "rise of high number of billionaires, 131 in 2018 as per Wikipedia, in India is a testimony of success of market economy in the country over the past two and half decades. It does demonstrate entrepreneurial and leadership prowess of the Indian corporate sector, which should evoke a sense of pride among most Indians.  However, when we stumble upon a data that nearly 40% of Indian children are suffering from malnutrition, stunted growth and impaired cognitive skills, our joy turns into worry.  Inequalities have risen all over the world but these have probably been the starkest in India. In a 2.4 trillion dollar economy, which is roughly one-fifth of the size of China and 12% of that of America, with per capita GDP being one of the lowest in the world, we account for the third highest number of billionaires. One of the panellist in the discussion pointed out that no other economy of our size ever had as many billionaires. These figures cause concern in the context of sustained allegations of rise in crony capitalism in India in recent years and perception of subversion of financial institutions, where episodes like Nirav Modi and Mallya could just be tip of a larger iceberg."

On Kashmir

On Kashmir, his views are strongly pro-India and critical of two-nation theory practiced by Pakistan. He has stated: "An enduring peace in Kashmir, a permanent victory (in the Pakistan sponsored) covert war and a decisive boost to India’s national security aspirations require serious governance reforms beyond Kashmir Valley. In order to convince Kashmiris that closer integration with the rest of the country is an opportunity they should seize with both hands, accelerated progress is needed throughout all of India towards economic prosperity, social harmony, the rule of law and a higher output on each of the parameters of the Human Development Index."

Views on Leadership

Though he has not shared any of the specific techniques to boost leadership skills but his views on leadership are interesting. He observes:

"The word leader or leadership has probably been over used in our times. We usually consider those individuals as leaders who occupy the highest rungs in political, professional or social hierarchies. These include institutions, organisation or communities or even nations or simply those individuals who command wider acceptability. However, the real test of leadership lies not in occupying a position at the top or acceptability among but in the quality of difference that they make to their own surroundings and even beyond. Good leaders make a more positive quality of difference or change, bringing people across divides and differences together, infusing greater synergy and harmony, even while opposing entrenched vested interests. 

Average leaders may succeed in certain circumstances and remain ineffective in the rest, good leaders succeed in most circumstances and even against several odds and great leaders need a very wide variety of skills and an exceptional push of both luck and support of associates to succeed and leave a mark. Great leaders leave a legacy that inspires people much after they are gone. They set their own benchmarks of excellence which are difficult to match or emulate. They are path breakers in the sense that they venture into newer areas and attempt things that are different.

''Good leaders transform the quality of output of their people - both individually and collectively. They show a sense of purpose and direction that is both appealing and viable. Their efforts contribute to bigger harmony and better output for all concerned. Great leaders build bridges and not walls. They succeed despite hindrances. They win battles and wars to destroy not only their enemies but those very factors that create and sustain such enemies. They inspire others through their acts, deeds and performance. They infuse a sense of higher self-worth among those whom they lead. In the process, they positively impact the wider society at least in some form or measure. The biggest success of  leaders would be their ability to win over even their enemies.'' ''History is replete with large number of examples of individuals occupying top positions in political, social or professional hierarchies but they lacked genuine leadership qualities. They landed up causing irreversible damage to the people or the entities whom they led and even beyond. On the other hand, great leaders changed the world forever.'' Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Napoleon Bonaparte, John Davison Rockefeller, Albert Einstein etc are some of the greatest leaders in different fields that the world has produced in recent centuries. None of them were perfect and they all had their own share of flaws but their actions and beliefs but they did help change the world for better in some form for the entire humanity."