Leading humanity

Leading humanity

There have been very few leaders who lived for the cause of humanity or fought for its need for freedom.

Is it not strange that in a world that is totally dependent upon human beings for its evolution, more leaders have fought as people against one another than a human race against the issues that inflict humanity.

In the death of Nelson Mandela, does one see the end of an era of leaders of humanity? Leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Hellen Killer, Emily Pankhurst, George Orwell or Dalai Lama?

It has been a distinct shift in the leadership character in the 20th century. Leaders of humanity are symbolised for Godliness and therefore considered more appropriate for social service. Unlike them, the leaders of people must demonstrate successful political missions convertible in economics to be acknowledged globally.

Even at the level of sciences and the art, the literature and poetry or sports and other professions, the benchmark of what is brought to the table rides higher than how that promotes a higher civilization.

So if a person such as Mother Teressa were to be in a role human liberation as a political movement would they would be considered less noble? At the least, its trust in nobility and humane would be seen compromised.

That is such a perception.

The distinction is much more pronounced in India - a strange phenomenon in a land that respects Gandhi as a Messiah.

Is that the reason why noble people are not worthy politicians? Or, will crafting goals and visions from a humanitarian perspective disable prosperity of the human society from an economic point of view? Or is noble a commerce word?

Therefore activists must stay activists and revolutionaries, crying for the human cause; and should they become part of the mainstream, change making society, they would be disrobed of their noble status.

Is a nation an object of geography with minerals, land, ecosystem, resources and people as its drivers for growth led by select people as its orchestrators?

I join people around the world in paying our homage to a man who brought about an unthinkable change through sacrifice and fight. However, I will be disappointed if that also becomes an occasion to pay homage to a rare noble skill and passion.

Nah, it is impossible to eliminate the human cause from a goal, mission or vision - at any level and in any sphere.

It is the human race that makes the world and it is the human race that leads the world. And, there is a vast difference between resources of the world and the people who are expected to engage resources for either development of the society, growth in commerce, establishing national pride or influencing the larger human evolution. People are not resources.

If people are simply resources, Mandela will be deprived of the very cause he fought against.

And it will stimulate the beginning of slavery once again. Apartheid cannot be then be matter of the 19th century. Done away with a forgone conclusion.

And we are then likely to promote another kind of nobility in the society - very distinct from a noble mind. Once again. Defining men of honor (in the 21st century, that should read as people of honor) in, once again, a royal way! Nuances aside.

Human beings are free and, therefore, every activity that involves them must consciously allow them the freedom to think, choose, decide and act.

In our rush to multiply overnight, if we are irresponsible in recognizing the need for a human cause as the beginning of a dream or a vision, we will cause an era to begin once again - injustice, coercion, exploitation and eventually distinguishing between those who own rights naturally, and, those who must fight for it!

Nelson, as your Soul rests in Peace, let the world not be devoid of your wisdom.