Waiting for 'the' Gandhi...

Being a leader is standing up for something that resonates with most of the targeted audience.
Our freedom fighters had it easy (in garnering support and participation), being leaders, because the “freedom of the nation” was a central idea that caught the attention and imagination of all the masses within the land. Even then the actual freedom took its time coming through. Further the freedom fighters were opposing a law abiding, actually law creating, creature vis-à-vis The British Government. Leaving the few shameful acts like that of General Dyer the British government was pretty much like any other government and better than most of the governments India or its states have experienced. Today there seems to be too many elements creating their own laws/demands for the citizens. The irony is most of them are not a part of the government
India and Indians are not ready for their next Mahatma but that is only because their next “Mohandas” cannot identify a passionate cause within the Indian society
Democracy ensures that we get the politicians/leaders/government we deserve. There cannot be a better example of this than India. Democracy is built on the belief that somebody “of” the people will represent the people and fulfill tasks “for” the people. The expected “of” the people, in India, is a much skewed population. The bias in the population leaves the choice of leaders, and hence the government, in the hands of the poorest and hence almost always the neediest. How appropriate will be the emerging leaders, when “need” is the basis of its followers
The expected “of” the people, in choosing a democratic government, is biased due to the voting patterns or rather the lack of it in some strata of the society. A study of participatory statistics of almost all the elections across India shows a dismal record across Indian masses. It barely crosses the 60% mark of the population. The numbers have further dwindled since the advent of “middle-class”. This section is yet busy exploring their new found status. This has left the choice of government in the hands of the “needy”.
It is no wonder that most of our so called “leaders” are more interested in finding “newer needs” than solutions to existing problems. In fact we are to be blamed for this. The easiest way to create a mass of “followers” is to create a new need which would interest a section of the society. Who says “Divide and Rule” has lost its edge?
We as a society are only too eager to follow a rogue “need” and divide ourselves in number of factions than stay together as Indians. It is this fragmented society that chooses its leader through voting. It is in “their” interest that we as a society stay divided in following our various personal “needs”. It is more important, for them, to keep us involved in irrelevant issues, which keeps them from resolving the main ones.
We as a society have become very outwardly dependent in focus. We want law makers to resolve our problems for us. And for every little issue we want a law to be decreed. This so, even when we know that every law created is only an opportunity for the implementation agency to be corrupt
An immature society will look for a brilliant leader to resolve their issues. But eventually they will continuously be at loggerheads with the policies because they don’t understand the brilliance in them.
A mature society can choose an average leader amongst them and accept the policies because they understand them. This makes it easier for the society to accept the policies as well.

There always will be a society,
A leader will certainly emerge in this society,
The leader will always be apt for the society,
The question is what society would we prefer to be?

I think it is time we take a closer look at ourselves than search a leader everywhere else.