ASK MAULANA

discontented, thus making the government’s second term doubtful. But, the result would certainly be the coming of a new culture in India, which would usher in an age of quality education and services. Thus, a process of sound development would be initiated. India’s basic problem is the lack of quality in education, services and administration. The only reason for this is favouritism, which inevitably thrives at the cost of quality. This policy may benefit some individuals, but because of it the nation as a whole suffers. Quality in work comes into evidence when everything is based on merit. Those who make the second term their concern will only take popular decisions. But, one whose concern is the nation will take realistic decisions. The issue facing Indian democracy is not who won the elections. Rather, the losers should willingly accept defeat, while the winners should make the availing of present opportunities their sole concern. In such a situation, the present party may lose the second term, but because of its efforts, the country will have been set in motion along the path of progress. In developed countries, the principle of ‘compete or perish’ works in every field. ‘Compete or perish’ is not a negative concept. In fact, it means ‘stand up through competition and save the nation from perishing.’ Thus, whenever there is development, there will, at the same time, be the voicing of complaints or grievances, which have to be dealt with. Otherwise, the process of development will come to a standstill. The concern of democratic administrators should be the nation rather than the immediate wishes of the voter community. The real issue for them must be whether or not the nation is moving towards holistic development in the long-term. Often we see that a minor dispute between two individuals leads to a full-fledged conflict between groups representing the two individuals. How to avoid such instances? People nowadays tend to resort to violence at the slightest provocation from others. When the losses of meaningless quarrels are pointed out to them, they seek to justify themselves by saying that they were not the aggressors and that their opponents had forced them to take to fighting. “We didn’t fight!” they retort. “It was those people who did it! They conspired against us to make us fight.”