Editor,
How does a leader ask citizens to sacrifice when the corridors of power continue to move in excess?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent appeal to Indians to conserve fuel, avoid foreign travel, reduce gold purchases and embrace austerity in the face of the West Asia crisis has sparked an important national conversation. On paper, the message carries merit. India, like many import-dependent economies, is under pressure as crude oil prices surge past $100 a barrel and geopolitical tensions continue to disrupt global supply chains. Responsible consumption during uncertain times is not unreasonable advice.
But leadership is not merely about asking people to tighten their belts. Leadership is about tightening your own first. When the Prime Minister asks ordinary Indians to avoid foreign vacations for a year, citizens are bound to notice that he himself is scheduled for another overseas tour, including a visit to Italy and other European destinations. While diplomatic visits are undeniably part of governance and international relations, optics matter in a democracy. A government cannot repeatedly preach restraint while appearing insulated from the very sacrifices it demands.
The issue is not whether India should conserve fuel or reduce unnecessary imports. The issue is whether those in power are willing to visibly share the burden.
The Prime Minister’s convoy reportedly consists of around 35 vehicles. Across India, ministers at both the Centre and the states often move with long fleets of SUVs, pilot cars, and security entourages that consume enormous public resources. If the government genuinely wants a national movement toward conservation, why not begin there? Why not reduce the size of official convoys, rationalise VIP movement, cut non-essential travel and publicly disclose fuel saving measures undertaken by ministries?
Citizens do not respond well to what feels like moral instruction delivered from a position of privilege. Appeals begin to sound less like collective responsibility and more like directives handed down from above. In a democracy, persuasion works best when leaders embody the values they promote.
The government insists there is no shortage of petroleum products, no crisis in reserves, and no immediate threat to supplies. India, officials remind us, has adequate crude oil, gas, and LPG stocks. If that is the case, the messaging should focus on prudent preparedness, not public alarm that risks creating anxiety. The Prime Minister is also right in encouraging domestic tourism and local products. Travelling within India, whether to Kochi, Shillong, Ladakh, or Kutch, strengthens the domestic economy. Investing in financial instruments instead of panic buying gold helps maintain economic stability. These are sensible suggestions.
However, patriotism cannot be demanded selectively from consumers while ignoring market realities. If Indian consumers find better quality or better prices in imported goods compared to certain domestic alternatives, the blame cannot automatically fall on the buyer. “Vocal for Local” cannot succeed through slogans alone, it must succeed through competitiveness, quality, affordability and innovation.
This principle extends beyond the ruling party. The Opposition too must face scrutiny. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s frequent foreign vacations have often drawn criticism, and rightly so. Public representatives across party lines must recognise that citizens today are deeply sensitive to political hypocrisy. Whether it is a ruling leader on diplomatic tours or an opposition figure holidaying abroad, public perception matters when leaders speak about sacrifice and nationalism. India’s strength has always come from its people’s willingness to stand together in difficult times. Indians have repeatedly shown resilience during wars, pandemics, economic crises and natural disasters. But trust is built when sacrifice is shared equally from the top down.
The country does not need rulers issuing lifestyle instructions from motorcades and international summits. It needs leaders who visibly practise what they preach. Because in moments like these, the nation quietly asks itself a simple question: are we being led by example or merely being told what to do?
Yours etc.,
Krish Marwein,
Via email
NEHU not the personal property of NEHUTA
Editor,
With reference to the news item that appeared in your paper and other online news portals, where NEHUTA under the leadership of Prof. Lakhon Kma advised the VPP not to politicize NEHU’s issues, I, as a student of this university, strongly oppose this advice. NEHUTA has organized many protests and demonstrations against the VC and other issues affecting the university, but no concrete results have been achieved. VPP, as a political party, has every right to take up issues affecting the student community and the youth with the concerned authorities, namely the PVC in this case. From the news item, it seems that NEHUTA’s leader a defeated candidate in the last MP election wants the party’s youth wing to bring issues to him so he can build his personal image, perhaps with future elections in mind.
Had the party’s youth wing not raised this issue, the public would not know about it, and the PVC’s promised refunds to the youth who applied for the job would not have come to public notice. Let me state here that NEHU is not the personal property of NEHUTA; it belongs to the people of the state. VPP, as a political party, has every right to follow up with the concerned authorities on all issues brought to its attention.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request
Via email
