Chapter No. 01: Introduction.shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/62123/12/7_chapter1.pdf · merits, rare gifts and great qualities of head and heart. ð•Vallabhbhai Patel

Contribution of Political Leadership in Economic Development: AStudy of Aurangabad District.

1 Chapter No. 01: Introduction.

Chapter No. 01: Introduction.

Introduction.

Religions In India.

Modern History of India.

Freedom Fighters India.

Indian Independence.

The Great Political Leaders of India.

Leadership.

Elements of Leadership.

Types of Leadership.

Theory of Leadership.

Expectation from Leaders.

Qualities of Effective Political Leader.

Crisis Of Leadership In India.

Problems In Political Leadership.

Major Causes of Failure in Indian Leadership.

Parliamentary System in India.

State Administration.

Political Structure of Maharashtra.

Government Departments.

Vidhan Sabha.

Women in Leadership.

Muslim Leadership and Politics in India.



Introduction:

India is a land of great political leaders who ruled the

country effectively and also by protecting its national interest. It

was not an easy task to accomplish, keeping in view the changes

taking place in the world political scenario. Leaders like Pandit

Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar,

Dr. Rajendra Prasad, etc.. Bose played an indispensable role in

changing the perspective of world towards India. The manner, in

which issues like border disputes, Kashmir and growing shortage

of food grains were handled, they really deserve an honor. The far-

sightedness and pragmatic characteristics of the leaders can be

assumed from the fact that they framed the Constitution of India

by inducting the best possible clauses of the world. They led the

country from the front, without being showing any inclination to

either of the power blocs.1

The participation in the freedom struggle demanded from

the leaders a certain amount of voluntary sacrifice of their personal

careers, properties and even family life. Under Gandhiji's influence

they had to live an ascetic life of self-imposed poverty and denial

of worldly pleasures. All this resulted in making the leaders very

much goal-oriented and the service motive became the dominant

note. With the general sentiment in favour of renunciation of

power, the power motive could not be much in evidence. Or it

could be argued that the power instinct remained suppressed till

1947.2 It may even be pointed out that in that period; acceptance of



a political career automatically divorced the person in question

from the sources of wealth-getting. Austerity was thus in part, the

consequence of lack of such opportunities.

Religions In India:

India known as the land of spirituality and philosophy was

the birthplace of some religions, which even exist today in the

world. The most dominant religion in India today is Hinduism.

About 80 per cent of Indians are Hindus. Hinduism is a colorful

religion with a vast gallery of Gods and Goddesses. Hinduism is

one of the ancient religions in the world. It is supposed to have

developed about 5000 years ago. Later on in ancient period other

religions developed in India.3

Around 500 BC two other religions developed in India,

namely, Buddhism and Jainism. Today only about 0.5 per cent of

Indians are Jains and about 0.7 per cent are Buddhist. In ancient

times Jainism and specially Buddhism were very popular in India.

Indians who accepted Buddhist philosophy spread it not only

within the Indian sub-continent but also to kingdoms east and

south of India. These three ancient religions, Hinduism, Buddhism

and Jainism, are seen as the molders of the India philosophy. In

'modern' period new religions were also established in India. One

comparatively new religion in India is Sikhism and it was

established in the 15th century. About 2 per cent of Indians are

Sikhs. There were other attempts to create new religions in India



but they did not always succeed. There are other religious

philosophies whose believers see themselves as a separate religion,

but they do not always get this recognition. For example Lingayat

of south India see themselves as a different religion, while others

see them as a sect of Hinduism. There are also some tribal

communities who demand to be recognized as separate religion

from Hinduism. In the 19th century some Hindu reformers tried to

remodel Hinduism to adjust it to modern period. Along with the

religions that developed in India, there are followers of non-

Indian religions. The largest non-Indian religion is Islam. They are

about 12 per cent of India's population. Christians are more than 2

per cent of India's population. There are also Zoroastrians who

even though make less than 0.01 per cent of India's populations are

known around India. There are also a few thousand Jews in India.

Judaism and Christianity might have arrived in India before they

arrived in Europe.4

Modern History of India:

During the late 16th and the 17th Centuries, the European

trading companies in India competed with each other ferociously.

By the last quarter of the 18th Century the English had outdone all

others and established themselves as the dominant power in India.

The British administered India for a period of about two centuries

and brought about revolutionary changes in the social, political

and the economic life of the country. Once the British set their foot

solidly on Indian soil, they began the commercial exploitation of



the natural resources of India. By the middle of the 19th Century

arrogant exploitation of the people had tried the patience of the

Indians to the limit. The British imperialism reached its zenith

between the middle of the nineteenth century and the First World

War. The exploitative policies of the British in India saw the birth

of nationalist agitation against it. With increasing intrusion of

aliens in their lives, a group of middle class Indians formed the

Indian National Congress (1885).5

The anti British struggle became truly a mass movement

with the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948). It was followed

by numerous movements against the British rule. With the passage

of time and stubbornness of the Indians the British had come to

realize that the day was not far off when they will have to quit

India. Successive campaigns had the effect of driving the British

out of India in 1947, but with independence came the

independence of the country into Pakistan.

Freedom Fighters India:

Today as we freely move around in our country without

anyone questioning or imposing any kinds of restrictions on us we

feel satisfied and contended. But this satisfaction is due to the

efforts taken by our freedom fighters to free our country from the

British rule. It’s because of our freedom fighters that today we are

enjoying are freedom. Their satyagrahas, sacrifices, and tortures



have resulted in the freedom that we enjoy today in our

motherland India.6

Mahatma Gandhi – the leader of all Indian leaders was born

at porbander in Gujarat on 2nd October. He gave the people

the weapon of non-violent struggle to fight injustice. He won

freedom for India on 15th august 1947. He died on 30th January

1948. He is rightly known as the father of the nation. His full

name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. His father was a

dewan of a princely state and his mother, a god fearing pious

lady. Gandhiji is respected all over the world today. He shall

never be forgotten.7

Jawaharlal Nehru is one of the most important people in the

list of Indian freedom fighters. After independence, Jawaharlal

Nehru became the first prime minister of free India. He was

also the author of the famous book “panchsheela” Nehru was

extremely fond of children. They simply loved and adored

him. With his death, India lost a peerless leader of outstanding

merits, rare gifts and great qualities of head and heart.

Vallabhbhai Patel - His brave deeds earned Vallabhbhai Patel

the title of the iron man of India. For his role in the Bardoli

Satyagraha, Patel came to be called the Sardar. Sardar Patel

was a famous lawyer but gave up his practice in order to fight

for the freedom of the country. After independence he became



the deputy PM of India and played an important role the

integration of India by merging numerous princely states with

the Indian Union.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak - Another famous Indian freedom

fighter is Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Lokmanya Tilak) who was

born in ratnagiri, a port in Maharashtra. His father was a

teacher and a scholar. He was a brave boy and always fought

for freedom, swarajya and self-rule. He also started two

newspapers “Maratha” and “Kesari” due to which he was

sent into prison. He wanted to spread the message of swarajya

through his newspaper. He said, “swaraj is my birth right and

I shall have it”. He died on 1st august. People loved him and

accepted him as their leaders and so he was called Lokmanya

Tilak.

Indian Independence:

The feeling of nationalism had started growing in the minds

of Indians as early as the middle of the nineteenth century but it

grew more with the formation of the Indian national Congress in

1885. Though the Congress started on a moderate platform but

with the passage of time and apathetic attitude of the British

government, the national movement began to shape well.

India acquired independence on 15 August 1947 though sections

of the country were carved out and stitched together to create

another new country, Pakistan. The “institutional” road to



independence was perhaps laid down by the Government of India

Act of 1935, where the gradual emergence of India as a self-

governing entity had first been partly envisioned. Following

India's independence in 1947, the Constituent Assembly

deliberated over the precise constitutional future of India. On 26

January 1950, India became a Republic, and the Constitution of

India was promulgated.8

Jawaharlal Nehru had become the country’s first Prime

Minister in 1947, and in 1952, in the country’s first general election

with a universal franchise; Nehru led the Indian National

Congress to a clear victory. The Congress had long been the

principal political party in India, providing the leadership to the

struggle for independence, and under Nehru’s stewardship it

remained the largest and most influential party over the next three

decades. In 1957, Nehru was elected to yet another five-year term

as a member of the Lok Sabha and chosen to head the government.

His ‘regime’ was marked by the advent of five-year plans,

designed to bring big science and industry to India; in Nehru's

own language, steel mills and dams were to be the temples of

modern India. Relations with Pakistan remained chilling, and the

purported friendship of India and China proved to be something

of a hoax. China’s invasion of India's borders in 1962 is said to

have dealt a mortal blow to Nehru.9



The Great Political Leaders of India:

Jawaharlal Nehru: Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime

Minister of independent India. He was a member the

Congress Party that led the freedom movement against British

Empire. Nehru was one of the architects who had the

opportunity to steer the newly freed-nation. He was also the

chief framer of domestic and international policies between

1947 and 1964.

Dr. Rajendra Prasad: Rajendra Prasad was a great leader of

the Indian Nationalist Movement and also one of the

architects of the Indian Constitution. He was elected as the

first President of Republic of India. Rajendra Prasad was a

crucial leader of the Indian Independence Movement, who left

his lucrative profession to participate in the nationalist

movement of India.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was

a renowned journalist of his time. Disturbed by his

provocative articles, the British Government decided to deport

him off Calcutta. Despite of his house-arrest and

imprisonment, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad continued to write

against the anti-people policies of the British Government.

Dr B. R. Ambedkar: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was popularly

known as Babasaheb Ambedkar and everyone knows that he



was one of the architects of the Indian Constitution. He was a

very well-known political leader, eminent jurist, Buddhist

activist, philosopher, anthropologist, historian, orator, writer,

economist, scholar and editor, too. Dr. Ambedkar fought to

eradicate the social evils like untouchability and for the rights

of the dalits and other socially backward classes throughout

his life. Dr. Ambedkar was appointed as India's first Law

Minister in the Cabinet of Jawaharlal Nehru. He was

posthumously awarded the Bharat Ratna, India's highest

civilian honour in 1990.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Vallabhbhai Patel was one of the

great social leaders of India. He played a crucial role during

the freedom struggle of India and was instrumental in the

integration of over 500 princely states into the Indian Union.

Despite the choice of the people, on the request of Mahatma

Gandhi, Sardar Patel stepped down from the candidacy of

Congress president.

Lal Bahadur Shastri: He devoted his life for the pride and

honor of the country. Shastri was regarded as man of

principles. Lal Bahadur Shastri offered his resignation as

Union Railway Minister; hours after he was made aware of a

train accident that killed around 150 people.



Indira Gandhi: Indira Gandhi was, undoubtedly, one of the

greatest political leaders of India. She was the first and only

woman to be elected as the Prime Minister. She is also

regarded as the most controversial political leader of the

country for her unprecedented decision of imposing "a state of

emergency".

Rajiv Gandhi: Rajiv Gandhi was one of the popular Prime

Ministers of India. The developmental projects launched by

him include the national education policy and expansion of

telecom sector. Besides his achievement and subsequent

popularity, Rajiv Gandhi also emerged as one of India's

controversial Prime Ministers.

Leadership:

Leadership is a phenomenon which pervades every human

associational activity, but it assumes a certain crucial significance

in an emergent democracy which boasts of the largest electorate in

the world and also desires to modernize in a short period of time.

The very future of this vast experiment depends on the continuous

and steady flow of leaders who can be depended upon for the task

of 'attending to the arrangements of the society'.10

Definitions:

In this research companion, we investigate political

leadership as a multidimensional phenomenon. Leadership is a



part of multi-causal social processes that bring about concrete

political outcomes. In the literature on leadership and

management, political leadership from the local to the national to

the global level is usually and correctly viewed as a subtype of

human social leadership – though we would stress that it is a

special ‘thick’, potentially all-inclusive, subtype. To understand,

explain and predict patterns of political leadership and arrive

at normative prescriptions for its proper design and

implementation, inquirers need to analyze the beliefs, values,

characters, power relations, and ethical/unethical values,

attitudes and actions of leaders and followers, as well as their

historical situation and cultural-institutional context.

Both leaders and followers are involved in a circular process

of motivation and power exchange that is often difficult to break

up into a causal sequence. Still ‘politics as leadership’ does occur,

however complex it is to conclude about the significance of its

causal role: leaders mobilize a significant number of followers to

accept their diagnosis of, and policy prescriptions for, collective

problems or crises. Moreover, leadership is a symbolic activity

mediated by culture, for leaders as ‘identity entrepreneurs’ are

engaged in providing myths/visions to create, reshape or

enhance national and other political cultures. In the process,

leaders and followers themselves are affected by what they help

create.



Political leadership is one of the most widely experienced and

intuitively or tacitly understood phenomena – like great power

competition, Olympic rivalries, climate change, the right to

develop, or central human rights controversies about trade-offs

between security and civil and political rights. In contrast, the

concept of political leadership is difficult to define essentially,

because it is dependent on institutional, cultural and historical

contexts and situations – both particular and general.11 Empirical

operationalization of the concept of leadership involves a host of

methodological issues, specifically those related to the definition

of variables and the problem of spurious correlation.

Nonetheless, the phenomenon of leadership clearly incorporates

leaders involved in some type of innovative adaptation with

followers, group objectives and organizational means, and

problematic situations and contexts.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a ‘leader ’ as ‘the

person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country’.

‘To lead’ means to ‘cause (a person or animal) to go with one by

drawing them along; show (someone) the way to a destination by

preceding or accompanying them’. In other words, goal- setting

and motivation both figure prominently as essential attributes of

the notion of leadership. Other languages differ considerably with

the meanings of equivalent translatable terms, but have also

adopted the English ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ in the last century.12



Elements of Leadership:

The following elements should be taken into account in

defining political leadership:

The personality and traits of a leader, including her or his

ethical and cultural character;

The traits and ethical-cultural character of the followers with

whom the leader interacts (keeping in mind that leaders of

different followers and followers of different leaders interact

as well, cooperatively or competitively);

The societal or organizational context in which the leader–

follower interaction occurs – general culture, political

culture, political climate, norms, and institutions;

The agenda of collective problems or tasks which confront

the leaders and followers in particular historical situations;

The nature of the leader ’s interpretive judgment, since

situations do not define themselves, but have to be defined

by leaders’ insights accepted by the followers;

The means – material and intangible – that the leaders use to

attain their ends and/or their followers’ goals; these are ‘the

techniques which the leader uses to mobilize support on

behalf of her or his agenda and/or to maintain support or

position’;

The effects or results of leadership (whether real or

symbolic, long lasting or transient).



Political leadership’ overlaps significantly with the higher

levels of military, legal, organizational, and religious and

ideological leadership, and is a special part of ‘social leadership’

in general, as we contended above. The latter includes parental,

business, educational, scientific and technological, athletic,

medical, cultural, artistic, religious, and other forms of leadership.

Some scholars focus on social leadership as a whole, and deal

with political leadership as a part among parts. Social leadership

and political leadership manifest themselves in formal positions

and behaviourally.13 Scholars who stress that political leadership

is a special part of social leadership also affirm that leadership is

‘related to power: a leader (in the behavioral sense) is a person

who is able to modify the course of events’. One notes that power

and leadership are equally elusive concepts that are both difficult

to operationalize. The alternative is to go in the direction of strict

stipulate definitions, but this may present us with research

dilemmas and methodological issues beyond the scope. We agree

with those who define political leadership as a rather unique set

of power relations and influences that is exercised over a broad

range of nationally and globally salient issue areas and from a

position of authoritative preponderance involving ideologies and

ethics:



Types of Leadership:

Most common Leadership Types are:

1. Autocratic Leadership: Autocratic leadership is an extreme

form of transactional leadership, where a leader exerts high

levels of power over his or her employees or team members.

People within the team are given few opportunities for

making suggestions, even if these would be in the team's or

organization's interest. Most people tend to resent being

treated like this. Because of this, autocratic leadership

usually leads to high levels of absenteeism and staff

turnover. Also, the team's output does not benefit from the

creativity and experience of all team members, so many of

the benefits of teamwork are lost. For some routine and

unskilled jobs, however, this style can remain effective

where the advantages of control outweigh the

disadvantages.

2. Bureaucratic Leadership: Bureaucratic leaders "work by the

book", are ensuring that their staff follow procedures exactly.

This is a very appropriate style for work involving serious

safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic

substances or at heights) or where large sums of money are

involved (such as cash-handling). In other situations, the

inflexibility and high levels of control exerted can

demoralize staff, and can diminish the organizations ability

to react to changing external circumstances.14



3. Charismatic Leadership: A charismatic leadership style can

appear similar to a transformational leadership style, in that

the leader injects huge doses of enthusiasm into his or her

team, and is very energetic in driving others forward.

However, a charismatic leader can tend to believe more in

him or herself than in their team. This can create a risk that a

project, or even an entire organization, might collapse if the

leader were to leave: In the eyes of their followers, success is

tied up with the presence of the charismatic leader. As such,

charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and needs

long-term commitment from the leader.

4. Democratic Leadership or Participative Leadership:

Although a democratic leader will make the final decision,

he or she invites other members of the team to contribute to

the decision-making process. This not only increases job

satisfaction by involving employees or team members in

what's going on, but it also helps to develop people's skills.

Employees and team members feel in control of their own

destiny, and so are motivated to work hard by more than

just a financial reward. As participation takes time, this style

can lead to things happening more slowly than an autocratic

approach, but often the end result is better. It can be most

suitable where team working is essential, and quality is more

important than speed to market or productivity.



5. Laissez-Faire Leadership: This French phrase means "let

them do" and is used to describe a leader who leaves his or

her colleagues to get on with their work. It can be effective if

the leader monitors what is being achieved and

communicates this back to his or her team regularly. Most

often, laissez-faire leadership works for teams in which the

individuals are very experienced and skilled self-starters.

Unfortunately, it can also refer to situations where managers

are not exerting sufficient control.

6. People-Oriented Leadership or Relations-Oriented

Leadership: This style of leadership is the opposite of task-

oriented leadership: the leader is totally focused on

organizing, supporting and developing the people in the

leader's team. A participative style, it tends to lead to good

teamwork and creative collaboration. However, taken to

extremes, it can lead to failure to achieve the team's goals. In

practice, most leaders use both task-oriented and people-

oriented styles of leadership.

7. Servant Leadership: This term, coined by Robert Greenleaf

in the 1970s, describes a leader who is often not formally

recognized as such. When someone, at any level within an

organization, leads simply by virtue of meeting the needs of

his or her team, he or she is described as a "servant leader".

In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic



leadership, as the whole team tends to be involved in

decision-making. Supporters of the servant leadership model

suggest it is an important way ahead in a world where

values are increasingly important, in which servant leaders

achieve power on the basis of their values and ideals. Others

believe that in competitive leadership situations, people

practicing servant leadership will often find themselves left

behind by leaders using other leadership styles.

8. Task-Oriented Leadership: A highly task-oriented leader

focuses only on getting the job done, and can be quite

autocratic. He or she will actively define the work and the

roles required, put structures in place, plan, organize and

monitor. However, as task-oriented leaders spare little

thought for the well-being of their teams, this approach can

suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, with

difficulties in motivating and retaining staff. Task-oriented

leaders can benefit from an understanding of the Blake-

Mouton Managerial Grid, which can help them identify

specific areas for development that will help them involve

people more.

9. Transactional Leadership: This style of leadership starts

with the premise that team members agree to obey their

leader totally when they take a job on: the transaction is

(usually) that the organization pays the team members, in



return for their effort and compliance. As such, the leader

has the right to punish team members if their work doesn't

meet the pre-determined standard. Team members can do

little to improve their job satisfaction under transactional

leadership. The leader could give team members some

control of their income/reward by using incentives that

encourage even higher standards or greater productivity.

Alternatively a transactional leader could practice

"management by exception", whereby, rather than rewarding

better work, he or she would take corrective action if the

required standards were not met. Transactional leadership is

really just a way of managing rather a true leadership style,

as the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations

for knowledge-based or creative work, but remains a

common style in many organizations.

10. Transformational Leadership: A person with this leadership

style is a true leader who inspires his or her team with a

shared vision of the future. Transformational leaders are

highly visible, and spend a lot of time communicating. They

don't necessarily lead from the front, as they tend to delegate

responsibility amongst their teams. While their enthusiasm is

often infectious, they can need to be supported by "detail

people". In many organizations, both transactional and

transformational leadership are needed. The transactional

leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done



reliably, while the transformational leaders look after

initiatives that add value. The transformational leadership

style is the dominant leadership style taught in the "How to

Lead: Discover the Leader Within You" leadership program,

although we do recommend that other styles are brought as

the situation demands.

Theory of Leadership:

Leadership has been described as the "process of social

influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support

of others in the accomplishment of a common task". A definition

more inclusive of followers comes from Alan Keith of Genentech

who said “Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for

people to contribute to making something extraordinary

happen.”15 Students of leadership have produced theories

involving traits, situational interaction, function, behavior, power,

vision and values, charisma, and intelligence among others.

Trait Theory:

Trait theory tries to describe the types of behavior and

personality tendencies associated with effective leadership. This is

probably the first academic theory of leadership. Ronald Heifetz

(1994) traces the trait theory approach back to the nineteenth-

century tradition of associating the history of society to the history

of great men. Thomas Carlyle can be considered one of the

pioneers of the trait theory. In On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the



Heroic History (1841) he used such approach to identify the

talents, skills and physical characteristics of men who arose to

power.16

Proponents of the trait approach usually list leadership

qualities, assuming certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead

to effective leadership. Shelley Kirkpatrick and Edwin A. Locke

(1991) exemplify the trait theory. They argue that "key leader traits

include: drive (a broad term which includes achievement,

motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership

motivation (the desire to lead but not to seek power as an end in

itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence (which is associated with

emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the

business. According to their research, "there is less clear evidence

for traits such as charisma, creativity and flexibility".

Criticism to Trait Theory:

Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties

may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently

challenge this approach. The "strongest" versions of trait theory see

these "leadership characteristics" as innate, and accordingly labels

some people as "born leaders" due to their psychological makeup.

On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves

identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential

leaders from non-leaders, then training those with potential.



Situational theory:

Situational theory appeared as an alternative to the trait

theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more

than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested.

Herbert Spencer suggested in 1884 that the times produce the

person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that

different situations call for different characteristics. According to

this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a

leader exists. The situational leadership model of Hersey and

Blanchard, for example, suggest four leadership-styles and four

levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits

that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of

followership-development. In this model, leadership behavior

becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but

of the characteristics of followers as well. Other situational

leadership models introduce a variety of situational variables.

Functional Theory:

Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986;

McGrath, 1962) is a particularly useful theory for addressing

specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational

or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leaderï¿½s main

job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care

of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they

have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman

et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton,



1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been

applied to team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it

has also been effectively applied to broader organizational

leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on

functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al.

(2001), Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005),

Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed

five broad functions a leader provides when promoting unit

effectiveness.17

A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these

functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman

(Fleishman, 1953) observed that subordinates perceived their

supervisors behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to

as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes

behavior involved in fostering effective relationships.18 Examples

of such behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate

or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating

structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on

task accomplishment. This could include role clarification, setting

performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to

those standards.

Behavior Theory:

However one determines leadership behavior, one can

categorize it into various leadership styles. Many ways of doing



this exist. For example, the Managerial Grid Model, a behavioral

leadership-model, suggests five different leadership styles, based

on leaders' strength of concern for people and their concern for

goal achievement. David McClelland saw leadership skills, not so

much as a set of traits, but as a pattern of motives. He claimed that

successful leaders will tend to have a high need for power, a low

need for affiliation, and a high level of what he called activity

inhibition (one might call it self-control). Kurt Lewin, Ronald

Lipitt, and R. K. White identified three leadership styles:

authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire, based on the amount

of influence and power exercised by the leader.19 Other leadership

styles have been identified as discussed below.

The first is the theory of traits, which explains that some

personality traits may lead some persons naturally into leadership

roles. It may be quote the example of Subhas Chandra Bose who

possessed some personality traits which ultimately made him a

leader rather than a British Indian civil servant. The second theory

is crisis or cause theory, which outlines that an important social or

political event in a society may throw up an opportunity for a

person or persons to rise to the occasion which brings out

extraordinary leadership qualities in ordinary persons. The

another examples of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and

Vallabhai Patel whose leadership qualities were brought out by

the freedom movement. The third theory is that given equal

opportunities, people may choose to become leaders by learning



leadership skills. This is called transformational leadership. This is

widely prevalent in most of the democracies. The fourth theory is

the dynastic theory of leadership which is easy to understand.

Leaders who emerge under one or the other type of leadership

mentioned above try to groom their sons and/or daughters to

become leaders to succeed them. This is common in traditional

societies and much more widespread in India. The pros and cons

of dynastic theory of political leadership is also currently debated

in the country. But it is not unique to traditional or pre-modern

societies. It operates even in developed and stable democracies like

the USA where Bush family has shown the characteristics of

dynastic leadership. Under this dynastic theory, wives or sons/

daughters or brothers /sisters may succeed the assassinated

leaders or those who are dead under tragic circumstances. In India

Rajiv Gandhi succeeded her slain mother. In Indonesia Meghawati

Sukarnoputri became president partly because of her father’s

name. In Pakistan, (Benezir Bhuttu), and in Bangladesh, (Hasina

Begum), the daughters of their slain fathers (who were political

leaders) succeeded them on sympathy wave.

Expectation from Leaders:

India had good leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Bal ganadhara

tilak, Bhat singh, Nehru, Lal bahadhur sasthri, Netaji, sardhar

vallabhbhai patel, Sarojini naidu, swami Vikanandha. They are

good leader because of their scarification to the nation. But today

many leaders’ aim to increase their Swiss bank balance, so they are



not accepted as good leaders. We don't depend on others we arise

as "good leader". Our country is badly in need of good leaders, we

all know, that most of the leaders in our country which are at

higher positions are corrupted and to make our country first we

need to have good leaders, and those leaders they don't support

corruption like Mr. Anna Hajare. But to fulfill this need for good

leaders in our country we have to choose good leaders they are

good in nature and don't support corruption. Because only the

leaders have the power to change the bad conditions of our

country, but we have the power to choose the leaders, so the need

for good leaders in our country can be fulfilled only by us and our

country really need it. Good leaders are base of any nation. Only

that nation will progress who have good leaders. Leadership

qualities are from inside of a being, they cannot be taught to a

person. We are still in the race of a developed country because we

lack good leaders. A good leader must have ability to listen to

people, think & take a fruitful decision. He must possess good

management skills & analyzing skills. A good leader's main

concern is development of nation & its people & not the

development of himself. A good leader must have value & ethics

to lead our country in a proper way & to mitigate corruption.

1. The person should be in Politics to serve the nation and its

countrymen and not to serve himself, his family etc. etc.

2. He should have well understanding of diversity in India as

well as present eco-social condition of our country.



3. As a political representative, he should have educational

qualification & Intellectual capacity to understand his

responsibility.

4. He should have clear understanding that, to retain India's

sovereignty, he himself his politically team should think

beyond religion, caste, language and should also stop

creating issues based on such divide and rule policy.

5. He should be capable enough to understand & play Politics

at International Level, which will raise dignity & respect for

India & every Indian.

6. In due course of time he should be able to convince Common

man that electing 550 ideal, patriotic MP's for LOK SABHA

will not solve all problem of this damaged nation, but if 121

crore common man will start following their constitutional

duties to fullest extent the change will be fast and

everlasting.

7. Who will set a new thought about politics.

8. Whose thought of working for country and people will be

above his self need.

9. Who will make other leader to be the part of development of

nation.

10. In which we can believe.



Qualities of Effective Political Leader:

“Effective Leadership” is all about -- getting people to work

together, to induce them to overcome their petty differences & to

forget their past grievances against one another. Therefore it is

about ‘making things happen by inviting citizens to transcend

their self-interests and instead to tap their collective energy and

creativity in the service of the larger good of the community,

society and nation.’ A good leader will have the qualities like

charisma, skills in oration, writing, decision making, time

management, administration, besides being resourceful, a man of

wit and knowledge and fund of common sense; a good leader will

also be honest, a man of integrity, idealistic and visionary.20

There are two diametrically opposite views about the

qualities of good leadership. One view is:’ a leader is born with

inborn qualities of leadership’ and the other is ‘a leader is born out

of an ordinary man’ In other words, an ordinary human being

grows and gets molded into a leader. The latter view is more

plausible, because, though a child may inherit some of the

leadership qualities of his parents through genes, the background

in which the child is brought up and other interpersonal, social

and economic factors actually mould him into a leader. Therefore a

man develops his leadership qualities by virtue of his education,

his family background and due to various social, political and

economic factors that he is exposed to in his day today life. The

qualities of a good leadership may vary from person to person



according to the background in which he was brought up and

molded. Likewise, the leadership qualities of a political leader or a

business magnet or a religious leader or a sportsman e.g. cricket

captain, may vary since their area of operation and expertise is

entirely different from one another.

However, there are some common qualities of a good

leadership which remain the hall mark of most of the leaders.

Generally a good leadership is a combination of many qualities

like charisma, extra ordinary intellectual skills in oratory, writing,

decision making, besides being strategic, tactful, steadfast,

resourceful, sincere, committed, knowledgeable and above all with

a fine memory, sense of wit and humor and a bundle of common

sense.21

A good leader is a fine administrator and also known for his

time management. History is replete with classic examples to

illustrate all the above mentioned leadership qualities.

1. Charisma: Charisma is an abstract and a powerful personal

quality of a leader that attracts and impresses other people.

Political and religious leaders are endowed with this quality.

For example, Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi were said

to be charismatic leaders since they were able to attract more

and more people wherever they went. In the US, Abraham

Lincoln was said to be a charismatic leader. Gautama

Buddha was a charismatic religious leader who attracted



more and more people towards Buddhism. In fact this

charisma played a vital role not only in attracting more

people but also hypnotized them to tow their political and

religious line.

2. Extra-ordinary skills of Oratory and Writing: Good leaders,

in particular, the political and religious leaders have been

extraordinary orators. They not only attract the people

through their speech but also able to convince them to tow

their political and religious will. A good leader is also

extempore capable of speaking on any topic on a given

situation. Former US President Abraham Lincoln was a great

orator and his Gettysburg speech during the civil war was a

classical example of his oratory skills and it has become part

of the American literature. ‘A house divided against itself

cannot stand’ was one of the famous quotes from the master

pieces of his speech. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, former Prime

Minister of India was an extempore similarly, some good

leaders have been excellent writers too. For example, former

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was a famous

writer in English, whose works won the Nobel Prize for

literature. In India, there are umpteen numbers of writers

besides being successful and good political leaders. Nehru

was a great writer, whose works like the Discovery of India

and the Glimpses of World History were great trend setters

in historical writing.



3. Decision making power: Good leaders have been good

decision makers too. For example former US President

Abraham Lincoln was great in decision making. When US

were facing a political crisis during the period of civil war, it

was Lincoln’s master stroke to declare for the emancipation

of slavery. But for the extraordinary talent and decision

making powers of Winston Churchill as the Prime Minister

of England during the period of the Second World War,

England could not have averted a war time crisis. It was the

extra ordinary decision making power of F. D. Roosevelt, the

former U.S President that helped US to blow away the crisis

of Great Depression of 1930s.and paved the way for a series

of reforms and reconstruction.22 While taking vital decisions

in crisis situations good leaders have always been strategic,

and tactful; remained steadfast and committed with an iron

will. When Lincoln took the strategic and tactical decision in

favor of emancipation of slavery in the wake of fierce

opposition from the white people, he had to remain sincere,

steadfast and committed with an iron will in favor of his

decision and in the end lost his life to bullets.

4. Resourcefulness: Resourcefulness is one of the characteristic

qualities of a good leader. Coupled with his talent and fund

of common sense, a good leader always takes timely

decisions in a given situation besides tackling any tricky

situation.



5. Sense of humor and wit: Good leaders do not bother about

any tricky situation they may face. Their sense of humor and

wit bail them out from such tricky situations. Winston

Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi were known for their sense

of humor. They also used this characteristic quality to

enliven the proceedings besides cheering up their followers.

6. Knowledgeable with a fine memory: Good leaders, whether

they have a formal education or not, always remained

knowledgeable with their voracious reading habit, besides

hearing patiently what others say. Above all they have a fine

sense of memory with a capacity to recall any event that

happened several years ago. With a faithful memory, good

leaders are able to keep a faithful following. A classic

example of faithful memory of a good leader is Napoleon

Bonaparte, the French leader. He was such a great organizer

of human resources only with his tremendous memory. It

may be astonishing to note that he could recall the names of

every one of his thousands of soldiers. personally and could

hobnob with them at ease just like an ordinary soldier.

7. Time Management skills: Good leaders are also notable for

their time management skills. Mahatma Gandhi was a classic

example. He was almost an addict in keeping times; always



wearing a timepiece around his waist, he was so prompt and

punctual in attending his multifarious political activities.

8. Administrative Skills: Good leaders are fine administrators

too. Being so prompt and punctual, they remain quite

efficient in the administration of an organization, whether

they are political leaders or religious leaders. Jawaharlal

Nehru was a fine administrator as the Prime Minister of

India as many as 17 long years between 1947 and 1964.with

unflinching devotion to duty.By virtue of his administrative

skills he carried forward his country from an

underdeveloped status to that of a developing country.

9. Honesty and Integrity: Good leaders are flawless in their

character,known for their honesty and integrity. Honesty in

turn evokes honesty from their followers. Mahatma Gandhi

was the classic example of a honest political leader besides

being a man of integrity. He always spoke the truth and

never gave up that policy until his death.

10. Idealistic: Good leaders remain idealistic in their vision and

in a way far advanced to their age. Despite being a leader

and having a mass following, they remain somewhat

isolated by virtue of their idealistic and advanced thinking.

Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi were the classic examples for

such personality.



11. Ability to lead from the front: It is the natural ability and

talent of the good leaders to lead from the front and avert

many crisis situations. In the political front great leaders

always lead from the front and change the destiny of their

nations.

12. Unselfish to the core: Good leaders are more concerned

about others and always remained unselfish. They never

think about their own welfare or well being but fight for the

causes and well being of others who need them most.

Mahatma Gandhi was the classic example; he never thought

of his own well being and always strived hard to achieve

freedom for India. He did not hold any post when India

became Independent and remained selfless to the core.

Nelson Mandela is another exemplary leader whose selfless

service to the cause of African National Congress is

praiseworthy. Being unselfish good leaders remain simple,

humble and unassuming. They even hate luxurious or

ostentatious way of living. They set an example for others by

their way of living. Mahatma Gandhi remained a half naked

fakir just because a common man in a remote village did not

have a shirt to wear. His food was also very simple and he

remained a tee totaller.



13. Driving force and Inspirational: Endowed with a number of

fine qualities, through their exemplary behaviour, good

leaders set an example for others, remain a driving force;

inspire their followers towards a specific goal and lead them

for a safe journey, whether it be an organization or a political

or religious movement.

14. Serving a Higher Cause: They fought for something larger

than themselves – they fought for the idea of a nation and

then set about making it happen. Besides setting high goals

and working actively towards it, the three also had to get the

public to believe in it and work in that direction too.

15. Sincerity and Conviction: “All these men were men of

conviction. They deeply believed in what they were doing

and put their reputations and their very lives on the line.

This conviction communicates itself intuitively. Anyone

watching, listening or even simply reading the text of rally

and stump speeches can feel the energy and sincerity of their

beliefs reaching out across the arc of time. These were

charismatic men, each in their own way, was fascinating to

observe and to engage.”

16. Courage – moral, physical and political courage: They ran

the danger of challenging both the colonial authorities as

well as the ruthless Malayan Communist Party. They did not



flinch from their stand but pressed home their position with

ever greater intensity.

17. Focusing on the interests of the people: These pioneers kept

their focus on the interest of the people. The object of their

political will and their policy energy was to improve the lot

of the masses. Things extraneous to that focus were avoided.

Good Leadership Model:

18. A good leader has an exemplary character. It is of utmost

importance that a leader is trustworthy to lead others. A

leader needs to be trusted and be known to live their life

with honestly and integrity. A good leader walks the talk

and in doing so earns the right to have responsibility for































others. True authority is born from respect for the good

character and trustworthiness of the person who leads.

19. A good leader is enthusiastic about their work or cause and

also about their role as leader. People will respond more

openly to a person of passion and dedication. Leaders need

to be able to be a source of inspiration, and be a motivator

towards the required action or cause. Although the

responsibilities and roles of a leader may be different, the

leader needs to be seen to be part of the team working

towards the goal. This kind of leader will not be afraid to roll

up their sleeves and get dirty.

20. A good leader is confident. In order to lead and set direction

a leader needs to appear confident as a person and in the

leadership role. Such a person inspires confidence in others

and draws out the trust and best efforts of the team to

complete the task well. A leader who conveys confidence

towards the proposed objective inspires the best effort from

team members.

21. A leader also needs to function in an orderly and purposeful

manner in situations of uncertainty. People look to the leader

during times of uncertainty and unfamiliarity and find

reassurance and security when the leader portrays

confidence and a positive demeanor.



22. Good leaders are tolerant of ambiguity and remain calm,

composed and steadfast to the main purpose. Storms,

emotions, and crises come and go and a good leader takes

these as part of the journey and keeps a cool head.

23. A good leader, as well as keeping the main goal in focus, is

able to think analytically. Not only does a good leader view a

situation as a whole, but is able to break it down into sub

parts for closer inspection. While keeping the goal in view, a

good leader can break it down into manageable steps and

make progress towards it.

24. A good leader is committed to excellence. Second best does

not lead to success. The good leader not only maintains high

standards, but also is proactive in raising the bar in order to

achieve excellence in all areas.

We should follow such leaders and even try to emulate

them. That is the only way of thanking and paying tribute to such

great leaders. Finally, a good leader must be faithful to his group

members and activities. This in turn, will result in an atmosphere

of assurance among the followers. Having faith in self abilities and

the world around him/her the leader gains inspiration and also

inspires others in the process.



Crisis Of Leadership In India:

It is common place to say that India faces a crisis of

leadership. The shortage of leadership is a result of the absence of

social conditions and arrangements which would promote

potential leaders. Thus it becomes urgent to think of the processes,

problems and influences that shape the emergence of new leaders.

Leadership is as urgent a social problem in India as the paucity of

economic resources, technical know-how and trained bureaucrats.

The problem assumes greater significance as the leadership is

expected to undertake the triple responsibility of strengthening

democratic institutions in a mass society, of modernizing the

masses and of initiating and performing developmental work.23

The role of political leadership in India has an added significance

as the people look to the state as an agency of social change. The

dependence on state initiative to undertake any new programme

or policy is noticeable even at the lowest level. Thus those who

would yield political power have to be initiators in social or

economic change.

India is not facing a leadership crisis. Rather It is facing ‘a

crisis of reluctance’, to change and to reform, to revolutionize and

seek,a system that breeds the best of the leaders, that protect and

uphold, the integration and dignity of our constitution." No

attempt is made to suggest quick solutions to this basic problem. It

is felt that the political leadership of a country is the product of

interacting forces, of history, of competing ideologies, of cultural



heritage and of the social structure of that community. Thus it is

thought that there could be no "western" or mechanical solution to

the leadership problem in India. This does not mean that the

Indian situation is in any way 'unique', but it is radically

different.24

Problems In Political Leadership:

The following problems were seen in Indian political

leadership.

a) Large no. of Political Parties.

b) Division of ‘Janta’ into: castes, communities, religion, region,

etc…

c) Lack of awareness about the Agenda of Political Parties.

d) Favouritism.

e) Non-Effective Participation of Voters during Elections.

f) Middle-Class Mentality to keep aloof from the Political

Parties.

g) The best from all fields have stopped from entering the field

of politics.

h) Self-Centric Approach.

i) Non-Confident Leadership.

j) Least botheration about the Real Public- Concerns.

k) Corruption—evasion of public-money.

l) Non-Effective Opposition Party.



Major Causes of Failure in Indian Leadership

1. Inability to Organize details: A good leader is supposed to

be a person with immerse power of organizing things in

much better way than his followers. The successful lead

must be the master of all details connected with his position.

That means, of course, that he must acquire the habit of

relegating details to capable lieutenants.

2. Unwillingness to render humble services: The greatest

among ye all shall be the servant of all' is a truth which all

able leaders observe and respect. A leader should always be

ready to do the act, upon demand, which he intends to be

done by his followers.

3. Expectation of pay for what they 'know' instead of what

they do with that which they know: A person is not paid for

what he knows but for what he does. A leader must

understand and implement this theory in his day to day

activities.

4. Fear of competition from followers: A leader should never

fear that one day his followers may take his position. An

efficient leader may through his know knowledge of his job

and the magnetism of his personality, greatly increase the

efficiency of others, and induce them to render more service

and better service than they could render without his aid.



5. Lack of imagination: Imagination can be defined as the

formation of a mental image of something that is not

perceived as real and is not present to the senses. Without

imagination, the leader is incapable of meeting emergencies,

and of creating plans by which to guide his followers

effectively.

6. Selfishness: Selfishness is evil. A leader should not claim all

the honor for the works of his followers. He is contented to

see the honors, when there are any, go to his followers,

because he knows that most men will work harder for

commendation and recognition than they will for money

alone.

7. Intemperance: What is Intemperance ? Well, it is the quality

of being intemperate. Followers don't respect an intemperate

leader. Moreover, intemperance in any of its various forms,

destroys the endurance and the vitality of all who indulge in

it.

8. Disloyalty: The leader who is not loyal to his trust, and to

his associates, those above him, and those below him, cannot

long maintain his leadership. Disloyalty marks one as being

less than the dust of earth, and brings down on one' head the

contempt he deserves.



9. Authority: A good leader should poses the power of

authority by consent and not by force. The leader who tires

to impress his followers with his "authority" comes within

the category of leadership, through force.

10. Emphasis of title: In fact, the competent leader requires no

'title' to give him the respect of his followers. The man who

makes too much over his title generally has little else to

emphasize.

Parliamentary System in India:

India opted for a parliamentary system of democracy in spite

of all the handicaps, and difficulties involved in doing so. When

the framers of its Constitution debated among themselves as to

what type of democracy India should have, various alternatives

were before them for their consideration. After extensive

discussion in committees and expert groups, they came to the

conclusion that the best form of government suited for India was

not the presidential system or the presidential-cum-parliamentary

system, as was in vogue in some European countries, but that it

was the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. This

conclusion was reached knowing that it is the most difficult form

of democracy practiced anywhere in the world in the last two

centuries.25



Among the various problems facing India, the most

important were lack of education and literacy, absence of healthy

traditions favoring accountability of the rulers to the ruled, vast

disparities in development between different regions and classes

of people, and also the fact that the people had got used to a non-

democratic system of governance during the colonial rule for

about two centuries. India still opted for this most difficult form of

government because of the conviction of the founding fathers of

the republic that it was only through the parliamentary system of

government that accountability of the executive to the legislature,

and therefore to the people, could be ensured. Moreover, in a

developing country with so many basic problems of social and

economic underdevelopment, continuing accountability of the

government to the people was considered more important than in

advanced democracies. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his famous speech

introducing the draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly on

4 November 1948, had explained to the members that they should

make a choice between stability and accountability.26 He said that

if they wanted more stability in the government, they should

choose the presidential system; but if they wanted more

accountability, they should go in for the parliamentary system.

Therefore, the framers of the Constitution, though fully aware of

the problems involved, wholeheartedly opted for the

parliamentary system.



State Administration:

The Administration at the State level is the cutting edge of

the public administration system in the country. Be it the issue of

ration or electoral identity cards, procurement of food grains,

implementation of employment guarantee schemes, supply of

drinking water, mutation of land records, functioning of primary

schools and healthcare centers or control of epidemics in the

countryside, it is the instrumentalities of the State and District

administration with which citizens have to interact. The

institutions of the State and District administration exist primarily

to provide these services to the citizens.27 There are laid down

rules and procedures for every aspect of the government’s

functioning and its interaction with the common man but, due to

weaknesses of the bureaucracy, growing complexities of

administration and absence of commitment and responsiveness, a

wide gap has emerged between “Government” and “Governance”.

Political Structure of Maharashtra:

Maharashtra is one of the most advanced states in India, the

second most populated state and the third largest state in India.

The State divided into thirty five districts, it has cities such as

Mumbai, Pune, Aurangabad, Kolhapur, Solapur, Nagpur, Thane,

Jalgaon and Amravati which have a distinct place on the map of

the world. All the districts of Maharashtra are grouped into six

divisions: Aurangabad Division, Amravati Division, Konkan

Division, Nagpur Division, Nashik Division and Pune Division.



The government, politics and judiciary of Maharashtra is

quite similar to those of the other states. The state of Maharashtra

is governed by the Governor and the Chief Minister. The Governor

is the nominal head of the state and the Chief Minister is the Head

of the government. He is the head of the political party which has

the maximum number of seats in the State Legislative Assembly.

The State Legislative Assembly is also known as the Vidhan Sabha

and it is situated in the capital city of Maharashtra, Mumbai. The

Chief Minister has all the executive powers which he can execute

taking the advice of his council of ministers. The government of

Maharashtra is aided by a bicameral parliament, the lower house

and the upper house - the Vidhan Sabha and the Vidhan Parishad.

The political party which holds the maximum number of seats in

the Vidhan Sabha at present is the NCP which had formed the

government with a coalition with the Congress. The state of

Maharashtra has been nominated 19 seats in the Rajya Sabha and

48 in the Lok Sabha.28

Government Departments:

Maharashtra government is dedicated towards serving the

citizens and for that purpose it has delegated the responsibility to

the various departments of the government. Each department

takes care of the different needs of the inhabitants. Apart from the

government departments, the government of Maharashtra is

assisted by the Boards and Corporations in the fulfillment of its

duty. The Government Departments and their functions are:



Agriculture Department Co-operation Department Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER) Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra Directorate of Vocational Education and Training (DVET) Employment and Self Employment Department,Maharashtra Finance Department, Maharashtra Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department Forest Department Home Department Irrigation Department Public Works Department (PWD)

Vidhan Sabha :

The Vidhan Sabha of Maharashtra is the lower house or the

House of the People. The total strength of the House is 289

members and the term of office for the members is five years.

Under unusual conditions the House may be dissolved. It consists

of members who are directly elected by the people of Maharashtra.

There are certain qualifications required to be the member of the

Vidhan Sabha which are:

To be a citizen of India.

To be not less than 25 years of age.

To be mentally sound and not bankrupt.

To have an affidavit of not having any criminal procedures

against him.



Women in Leadership:

Women’s leadership and effective participation is

increasingly on the development agenda of governments, bilateral

and multilateral agencies, and non-governmental organizations,

including women’s rights groups. Evidence from programmes and

research demonstrates the important role women play as key

actors and decision-makers in the development process across a

wide range of sectors.ii In the political arena in particular, there is

growing momentum among governments to foster and ensure

women’s participation and leadership in governance structures.

Establishing quotas for women’s representation at different levels

of governance has been a strategic tactic in achieving this goal in

many countries.29

According to the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap

Index (2009), India ranks 24th out of 135 countries in regards to

women's political participation. In the world's largest democracy,

women still hold a mere 10 per cent of seats in India's Parliament.

Yet at the same time, the struggle to enact the Women’s

Reservation Bill, which would allot 33 per cent of seats in state

legislatures and parliament for women, continues.30 As of today,

the passage of this bill is close to becoming a reality. Although

women politicians will continue to face different barriers and

certain disadvantages before and after taking political office, it is

imperative that they are able to receive sufficient training and

knowledge with which to prepare them for greater political



involvement. Women who aspire towards becoming effective

politicians in India must acquire specialised knowledge and

experience in order to win elections and pursue inclusive policies

at the local, state and national levels.31

Muslim Leadership and Politics in India:

Of all the minorities, the Muslims occupy a distinctive place

in Indian politics for many reasons: because of their proportion in

the population which makes them the single biggest minority;

because of their historical role, cultural contribution, social

distinctiveness and urban and semi-urban habitation contrasted

with their present cultural bewilderment, social degeneracy,

educational decline and economic backwardness; and because of

their sense of political despair so unwisely perpetuated by the

existence of exclusivistic non-secular, uncreative and inept

leadership. For a clearer understanding of Indian politics, no less

than for a better appreciation of the Muslim response to the

processes of secularisation and modernisation in India, systematic

studies of Muslim politics under different situations and

conditions and in different parts and regions of the country are

called for.32

Communal polararisation of Hindus and Muslims, the two

largest religious communities in Indian sub-continent initially

started with national renaissance movement particularly after the

advent of British rule in this country. Contrary to the pluralistic



character of Hindu society, Muslims have all along been a

communally organized social group in India. Politicization of this

divide however got momentum during the freedom movement.

After independence, the Muslim masses more and more looked

upon as vote banks to be exploited, by the political parties.

Muslim leaders looked at the formation of congress in 1885 not for

political rights of Indians as such but more for the Hindu stream.

References:

1. http://www.culturalindia.net/leaders/

2. Arora, S.C. (1987) “Problem of Party Membership: A Case

Study of the Indian National Congress, Indian Journal of

Political Science. 48(2), April-June, 179-94.

3. Transforming India (1991): Social and Political Dynamics of

Democracy, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 207-30.

4. Basu, Amrita (1996) - Mass Movement or Elite Conspiracy’?

The Puzzle of Hindu Nationalism”, in David Ludden (ed.),

Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community and the Politics

of Democracy in India. Philadelphia: University of California

Press.

5. Basu, Amrita, and Atul Kohli (ed.) (1995) - Community

Conflicts and the State in India. Delhi: Oxford University

Press.

6. freedom fighters of India -

http://www.indianchild.com/indian_freedom_fighters.htm

http://www.culturalindia.net/leaders/



7. Sarkar, Sumit (1976). “The Logic of Gandhian Nationalism:

Civil Disobedience and the Gandhi Irwin Pact, 1930-31”,

Indian Historical Review, 3 (1).

8. Brass, Paul R. (1994). Politics in India Since Independence.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Lele, Jayant and Rajendra Vora (ed.) (1990). State and

Society: Changing Social Base of Indian Politics. Chanakya

Publications, Delhi.

10. V M Sirsikar (1965) - Political Leadership in India – The

Economic and Political Weekly, March 20, 1965.

11. Datta, Prabhat (1993). Regionalization of State politics in

India. New Delhi: Sterling Publications.

12. Bhandari, Ashish and Sen (1997) - Samar, Modern

government and political process, Kanishka Publications,

New Delhi.

13. Biju M.R. (1999) - Parliamentary democracy and political

change in India, Kanishka Publications, New Delhi 1999.

14. Datta, Prabhat (1993) - Regionalisation of Indian politics,

Sterling Publications, New Delhi.

15. Mukerjee, Subrata and Sushila Ramaswamy (1997) - Political

Science - Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi.

16. Noorani, A.G. (1990) - Indian affairs: the political dimension,

Konark Publications, Delhi.

17. Singh, Mahendra Prasad and Rekha Saxena (ed.) (2007) -

Ideologies and institutions in Indian politics, Deep and Deep

Publication, New Delhi.

http://www.indianchild.com/indian_freedom_fighters.htm



18. O.P. Gauba (2011) - An Introduction to Political Theory -

Macmillon Publications, New Delhi.

19. Thesing, Jospf and Wilhelm Himeiser (eds.) (1995) - Political

Parties and Democracy – Sanket Publications, KAS.

20. Tiwari, Lalan (1995) - Issues in Indian politics, Mittal

Publications, New Delhi.

21. Rama lingam (2008) - What Are the Qualities of a Good

Leader? - http://leadership-management.knoji.com

22. Brahmananda P.R. (1999) - Stabilising the political system -

The Hindu, 1 May 1999, p. 12.

23. Chhiber, Pradeep K. and John R. Petrocik - The puzzle of

Indian politics: Social cleavages and the Indian party system

- British Journal of political Science, 19 (2), Apr. 1989 : 191-

210.

24. Kunal NagpalLeadership crisis in indian politics -

http://www.slideshare.net

25. P.C. Alexander (2007) – Reform of Political Parties in India -

ASCI Journal Of Management 36(2).

26. Chhiber, Pradeep, "Political parties, electoral competition,

government expenditures and economic reform in India",

Journal of Development Studies, 32(1), Oct 1995 : p. 74-96.

27. Jayaramu, P.S. (1999) - Political parties and Lok Sabha

elections - Mainstream, 37(38), 28 Aug 1999 : p. 7-8, 23.

28. http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/maharashtra/govern

ment-politics-and-judiciary.html.

http://leadership-management.knoji.com

http://www.slideshare.net

http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/maharashtra/govern



29. United Nation (2012) - Opportunities and Challenges of

Women's Political Participation in India - A Synthesis of

Research Findings from Select Districts in India - ICRW –

UN Women Joint Publication.

30. Dandavate, Pramila, "Participation of women in political

power - provision of 33 per cent reservation", Janata, 52(1),

Ann. Number 1997 : p. 31-33.

31. http://www.womenleadership.in/

32. Rasheeduddin Khan (1971) - Muslim Leadership and

Electoral Politics in Hyderabad: A Pattern of Minority

Articulation-I - Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 6, No. 15

(Apr. 10, 1971), pp. 783-794.

http://www.womenleadership.in/

Documents

Chapter No. 01: Introduction.shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/62123/12/7_chapter1.pdf · merits, rare gifts and great qualities of head and heart. ð•Vallabhbhai Patel