Leader Should “Lead The Cause” And Not “Own The Change”

First, when they are just as good as “no one” in the public life, they want to bring in the change. They move ahead on the path. They put in efforts with good intentions. They start getting success. Change is on the verge of being brought into the system. Things change! For, they change. Why does it happen that people like Arvind Kejriwal start on a good note but end up going hayway? The problem starts when the leaders begin to think that they “own” the change. Yes! They, the leaders, like any other man succumb to the phenomenon of ‘possessiveness’ towards not only the cause they are leading but also the change they intend to bring in the society. This is inherently against the concept and the process of mass mobilization and mass movement. “Collectiveness” is the most vital requirement of any mass movement. This perquisite is destroyed when the ownership of the whole mass movement is taken out of the mass-movement into the exclusive personal domain of the leader. A leader is a leader if he has followers. A leader walks with the masses. At a critical point, the leader claiming sole right over the “movement” and disconnecting the masses is totally against the very essence of a mass-movement. This ultimately takes toll of the endeavour. Dear leaders, you can lead the cause but you cannot ‘own’ the change’. The change belongs to the humanity. The position of ‘leadership’ in the mass movements is not like an official position in some institutional setup that you can lay your right on. No one can contend for the position of leadership. As I have said many times earlier, mass movements create leaders. Leaders do not create mass movements. A leader should be thankful and indebted to the mass movement and the society that gave him the opportunity to lead them. But, instead, the leaders wrongly start assuming that they are the genesis of the “change”. This leads to a compromise on the sincerity of the steering hands. The cause too gets lost somewhere along the way because the priority changes for the leader. Now, he is more conscious about owning the ‘mass-movement’. The goal of the movement becomes subservient to his personal agenda. Even the best of the men fall prey to their own “self” ignoring the public interest. It should always be remembered that the change is more important than the one who is bringing in that change. Revolution is more important than the revolutionary. Public interest is more important than the personal interest.