Editor,
It has become a tradition in our state and the country as whole to name government infrastructure which are built and developed by the taxpayers’ money after politicians. Is it fair?
Names of politicians in every foundation stone – is it not enough for them? Why glorify politicians so much so that most of the government infrastructure is to be named after politicians? When most of them are corrupt or alleged to be corrupt?
The truth is that, except a few leaders in the past and one or two in the present, Arunachal Pradesh is yet to see a great leader who is elected on the basis of leadership qualities and not on the basis of money power.
The recent issue regarding the naming of the district hospital in Likabali has become the talk of the town for various reasons. One section of the society wants it to be named after their former leader (former minister), and the other section of the society wants the same too.
The greater question is: Do any of the past as well as present leaders of Lower Siang district truly deserve any government infrastructure to be named after them?
The answer would be a big no from most of the genuine people of Lower Siang. People who are born and brought up in the district know the political leaders of the district (past as well as present) and they know very well in their hearts whether they deserve such an honour or not.
It is a well known fact that most of the political leaders were busy amassing assets and properties after they were elected as leaders. Some went on to become ministers as well. They became richer manifold after getting elected by the people. And it seems that this trend is still continuing in Lower Siang district and the state as a whole.
Whoever were elected from the district, most of them brought about meagre development for the public and were mostly busy giving jobs to their kith and kin. They were busy acquiring assets and building properties, and bringing development for a few people, such as their election workers and yes men. Many who could not even write a simple application or press a key at the computer during their time of initial appointment got jobs through the blessings of political leaders. People have seen many yes men become crorepatis within a short period of time along with the elected leaders. Many people have the wrong notion about the people who are yes men. People think they are smart, that they have achieved everything in their life because of their smartness and hard work. But the reality is, they are partners in crime with corrupt leaders.
The irony is that corrupt leaders, yes men and backdoor entry officers and officials do have the audacity to lecture people on corruption and development-related issues when their very existence itself is because of corruption.
Simply becoming an MLA or a minister doesn’t make a person a great leader. A great leader is defined by his/her deeds and the service rendered to the people.
No disrespect to any political leaders or any society, but question must be raised about the conduct of political leaders of the past as well as the present. What major developments were done during their tenure? Did they do no corruption during their tenure? Did they make no backdoor entries of their kith and kin in various government departments? Raising genuine question should not harm any society or organisation.
There is a trend in Arunachal Pradesh: no matter how corrupt a political leader may have been during his/her tenure, if he or she passes away, people start praising the leader and tend to address the person as a great leader, he/she was loved by all, etc. In reality, everybody knows the harsh truth. Does corruption done by a politician or a person die along with him or her? It should not be, but people behave like it is so. This wrong trend is still prevailing in the state. This must stop at once. A corrupt person can never be a great leader of the state. We must not forget that even if a leader is no more in this world, the impact of his/her corrupt activities on the common people don’t die out.
Not against the naming of the district hospital in the name of any political leader, but if there is any controversy, it would be better if the district hospital is named after the name of district itself or in the name of the particular place where it stands. Just to name a district hospital, why should there be any unnecessary controversy?
Lets not become a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Concerned citizen