• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Vision thing

B. S. Raghavan

I now understand why the senior Mr George Bush, when he was the US President, was riled by the `vision thing'. Everybody -- beginning from the perennial schoolboy to the pontificating academic -- is mouthing it. It ranks next only to `paradigm', `strateg ic', `transparency' and other buzzwords spewed by people from the top of their heads without thinking.

Since overuse had made it rather passe and blase, furious efforts to refurbish it resulted in `vision 20/20'. Even this having been sufficiently belaboured in all kinds of forums and publications, the hunt is on for some coinage more `sexy' and rapturous . All indications are that the hunt will end -- surprise, surprise! -- in the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.

Seems Mr Lal Krishna Advani has recently come to be sold on the `vision thing', and is seriously contemplating the creation of a new `vision division'. No less a conclave than the Group of Ministers on National Security, chaired by Mr Advani, has endorse d the idea.

Let us leave aside the jitters this may cause to Mr K. P. Geethakrishnan, Chairman of the Expenditure Reforms Commission, who has just completed his labours on ways of downsizing the Government, going so far as to suggest the elimination of one post of S ecretary (Expenditure), whose nemesis is implicit in his designation itself. The real question is about the exact mission of the `vision division' and whether its exalted position will lead to any fission or lack of cohesion in relations with other Minis tries, or with long-ensconced chiefs of other fiefdoms within the Minstry.

Has Mr Advani taken into account the emotional distress in which his initiative is bound to make his colleagues wallow? Will they not take the meaning of the move to be that they do not have or need vision? If they have all to be mollified by letting the m revel in a `vision division' in every Ministry, is it enough if the Secretary (Expenditure) alone is sent home packing to make up for the extra expenditure?

That apart, Mr Advani seems to have all-too-readily assumed the availability of sufficient number of persons of vision to run the `vision division'. Were it to be so, will the country be in such a mess? Mr Advani had better check up with Dr Abdul Kalam, the author of `India 2020 -- A Vision for the New Millennium'. According to him, it is not enough to have visionaries: Their vision is worth nothing if it cannot be translated into action. India is notorious for all talk and no action, so much so when, d uring Indira Gandhi's Emergency, Sanjay Gandhi ordered all trucks to carry the motto, `More work, less talk', the sign-painters changed it to `More workless talk'!

Further, Dr Abdul Kalam says that for a vision to be backed by deeds, three kinds of persons are needed: Punyatmas (who sacrifice their own comforts to engage in nation-building activities), punyadhikaris (able persons in administration who help in the p rocess) and punyanetas (Dr Kalam frankly says he is in search of them!) Surveying his domain as a Minister and a party luminary, does Mr Advani see anyone answering to Dr Kalam's call?

Do you now see how a seemingly simple and self-evident proposition can have grim and grave implications?