Starting
from caves to the plans for settlement colonies on Moon and Mars, the evolution
of human systems has been in synchronism with the evolution and nature of
leaderships. Leaders, leadership and their functional support systems have
changed over the ages at all levels beginning from family, village, state,
province and international levels. Leadership is followed both through
unwritten norms as well as duly established systems of governance and
administration.
When
you land up at an alien place, US dollar in your pocket is the most assuring
factor for your safety and upkeep. If US dollar in every nook and corner of the
world gives you a feeling of protection as a world citizen possessing some
purchasing rights, then does not it speak about America as a world leader in
more ways than one? Nothing wrong with that! The fight for the topmost sayer in
world affairs has not been assigned to the Americans by their constitution
makers. They have managed and earned it.
America
possesses a deep knowledge of the internal affairs of nations whom it wants to
manage in a broad spectrum of its policies chosen to keep its position as the most
influential player in world affairs. By default this policy would not like too
powerful nations to manage under its foreign affairs department. American
policy through its brilliant network of hundreds of thousand CIA operatives is
based on the basic parameter of finding the contrasting shades prevailing in
the world at all levels ranging from nationalities, religion, geographies,
histories and many more. These antagonistic parts jutted against in an issue
are the two fronts that can be made to keep staring in each other’s eyes at the
stake of larger issues of peace, progress and prosperity. American policy is to
pick up these opposite elements in all issues across the world and keep them
engaged in confrontation by either supporting one or suppressing the other.
When
divisions can be maintained, it stops the emergence of strong nation states.
For example a violent South Asia with India and Pakistan as staunch enemies is
a safer bet for the aspirant world leader than a peaceful region with both
countries using their money and resources to become more stable and prosperous.
Similarly India and China throwing potshots at each other is a better scenario
for the world leader. For example, to stop an escapist approach by India
regarding China, America may support India to give it a semblance of confidence
against the Dragon. When the weaker opponent finds some support in the form of
the superpower, than it will definitely be less compelled to go to the
negotiation table. It keeps the issues alive. That friction between the neighbours
works as a sort of drag on their feet on the path of further peace and stability
and consequent rise in the national power.
The
same world leadership theory would also mean lesser chances of strong stable
governments in countries across the world. China emerged to challenge America
on account of the fact that they managed a very strong and stabilized system of
governance over decades. State energy was used just in developing infrastructure,
weaponry and industries. Consider it in relation to India’s tottering efforts
with democracy. It has won us more praise in books for democratic values and
less in terms of the results in implementation. Obviously we have been wasting
too much resources on unnecessary issues.
A vibrant
India under a secure government run by a strong leader cannot fit well with the
global theory of leadership that is presently being operated by America (simply
because they are able to play it). Given the American efforts to manage the
world in ways that are more suitable to them for the next coming decades, it is
unthinkable that they will be just uninterested spectators at a distance while
the biggest democracy goes for elections. Of course Americans will have their
set of priorities. They will have certain things in their scheme that will keep
them in a brighter position regarding India. And of course they do it subtly
indirectly with the help of their vast networks at various levels. So crux of
the matter is: A confident India under a stable BJP government under Modi is
not a safer bet for America. As the world super cop it will any day prefer a
India struggling politically under a motley mix of governing alliance run by
some consensus choice. Whenever India had coalition third alternative
governments, we had weakest short-term prime ministers.
Modi
was clearly running to the dawn of glory. After the UPA disaster it was just
expected that BJP might come to power with a comfortable majority. A strong
nationalist leader having comfortable majority is always in a position to bring
about major shifts in the plans and policies through constitutional provisions.
To begin with, it is disastrous for Congress whose old system of catching onto
its deprived vote bank will become outdated. At the international level it may
push India on a path taken by China under a strong stable government where it
started even retorting America. So obviously a weaker India always needing
American help to beat the Chinese nightmares is a safer bet for the Americans.
In
this context all the factors that may come handy in stopping the Modi wave and
help in a fractured mandate will be facilitated by America. Nothing
exceptional! It is just fitting with the world theory of leadership!!