I am rather crestfallen, like many millions of citizens, to see your conspicuous absence from the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament. At my advanced age, I must admit that this absence has disappointed me deeply. In that context, I personally feel that it is time to revisit the question of leadership behaviour. It is never too late for a leader to introspect and assess his own leadership by the three primary political methods—leadership by example, leadership by authority, and leadership by persuasion—and, more importantly, examine their effectiveness in influencing public behaviour, facilitating legislation and driving societal change.
In my view, leadership by example is highly dependent on flawless personal conduct. Any serious moral failing can substantially erode a leader’s political capital. The moral authority to inspire action under the slogan of “Zero Tolerance against Corruption” has, in my assessment, taken a beating amid controversies surrounding paper leaks, allegations relating to the handling of cash and valuable donations at the Ram Mandir, and land-scam allegations.
Mere passage of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026, following widespread student protests over irregularities in major entrance examinations, to strengthen the 2024 law, does not by itself inspire confidence among people at large, particularly students.
The failure to proactively respond to what many perceive as the “collapse of the education system”, and to address concerns over its increasing corporatisation and commercialisation, is enabling student protests to spread across the country. The perception of indecisiveness and delayed action is real and cannot simply be wished away.
None can deny that the education system faces serious challenges. What is therefore required is a holistic reform of education, based on extensive debate and broad consensus. Such reform must rebuild deep psychological trust among students, parents and teachers and, above all, remove the perception of hypocrisy. If reverting education to the State List deserves consideration, then perhaps it should be given a serious try.
Admittedly, even the exercise of leadership authority has not always appeared decisive. The initiative to begin talks with those protesting at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi came only after 26 days, while the agitation itself reportedly continued for 36 to 37 days. For young people already frustrated by uncertainty over examinations, employment and their future, such delays can only deepen distrust.
Furthermore, the effort to shape public opinion or build legislative consensus through a compelling political narrative appears woefully inadequate. No wonder Parliament continues to witness gridlock over a variety of issues, crises and challenges.
Undeniably, the task of guiding, inspiring and empowering people towards the shared vision of “Viksit Bharat 2047” appears to be losing its appeal among sections of students and the unemployed. More importantly, it is necessary to recognise the possibility of declining personal charisma, which is an important prerequisite for persuading protesting groups, addressing the concerns of different sections of society, mentoring young people and resolving conflicts.
Personalised emotional appeals and populist sloganeering through “Mann Ki Baat” can no longer be assumed to be sufficient to bring people together under your leadership. The younger generation, in particular, appears increasingly inclined to question, challenge and demand explanations rather than simply accept political assertions.
It is significant, therefore, that RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat, while addressing more than 2,000 Gen Z and Gen Alpha students at the IIMUN Annual Championship Conference in Mumbai, openly backed youth-led political dissent. He described protest as a legitimate means of dialogue and consensus-building in a democracy and acknowledged that the grievances being raised by Gen Z are genuine. He also rejected the tendency to brand protesting youngsters as “anti-national”.
His observation that the era of blind obedience is over deserves serious consideration. The younger generation today is more willing to ask questions and demand reasons and logic rather than accept administrative dictates unquestioningly.
During his 2026 interactions in Mumbai, Bhagwat also spoke about the philosophy of leadership. Drawing from a traditional Sanskrit formulation, he emphasised the qualities of Patre tyagi—generosity, Gune ragi—appreciation of talent in others, and Rane yoddha—courage in times of strife. His larger message was that leadership is not about permanently occupying institutional positions but about mentoring others and creating future leaders.
This is precisely where introspection becomes necessary.
Cumulatively viewed, it is never too late to lead from the front. There are still another 10 or 12 days of the Monsoon Session. Why not demonstrate leadership through regular attendance in Parliament for the remaining days?
After all, you have repeatedly described Parliament as the “Temple of Democracy.” If Parliament is indeed a temple, then its principal Pujari is none other than the Prime Minister. The Home Minister, by that analogy, is the assistant Pujari. Both have a responsibility to be present when democracy’s most important deliberative institution is in session.
So what if Opposition women MPs once again gherao the Prime Minister or the Home Minister?
Indeed, such an incident would expose, once again, the unwillingness of Opposition parties to debate issues constructively and build the consensus that is vital for advancing and consolidating democracy. It would provide an opportunity to demonstrate courage, not cowardice; engagement, not avoidance; leadership, not absence.
The absence of both the principal and assistant Pujaris from the Temple of Democracy, therefore, does not augur well for the effective functioning of parliamentary democracy.
There is little point in delivering “Mann Ki Baat” every month or an Independence Day sermon from the ramparts of the Red Fort if the people’s representatives cannot see the Prime Minister and the Home Minister consistently present in Parliament when the House is actually functioning.
Yes, absence may be a political strategy. It may even have tactical justification.
But strategy has its limitations.
It becomes increasingly difficult to influence a generation that is already being emotionally swayed by Opposition parties and social media if the leadership does not meet that generation’s questions directly, openly and courageously.
The time has come, therefore, not merely to speak to the nation—but to stand before Parliament, face the questions and lead from the front.
That is what leadership by example truly means.
