Does reluctance reflect deep guilt?

The First Administrative Reforms Commission was formed in 1966, chaired by Morarji Desai. The Commission submitted 20 reports into the Mid- 1970s, finally tabling  a report indicating implementation position in Nov 1977 before the parliament, the year of the fall of Indira Gandhi.

The recommendations of the Commission were inclined to rely on the Govt offices, to appoint those, who will be to look into the gross irregularities of these office.

e.g., "These authorities should be independent of the executive as well as the legislature and the judiciary. The Lok Pal should be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The PM shall consult the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition. The Lok Pal shall have the same stature as the Chief Justice of India and can be removed only by impeachment. The Lokayuktas shall have similar powers as the Lok Pal and shall be equivalent to the Chief Justice of a High Court. Their appointment should, as far as possible, be non-political."

The committee might have considered the President, the PM, the leader of the opposition to be above such pettiness that might result in a skewed appointment, but by today's standards, neither is this suggestion a description of " non-political" , nor "independent of the executive as well as the legislature and the judiciary ". Case in point - P. J. Thomas, appointed as Chief Vigilance Commissioner, with no less than a criminal case pending, has reduced India's official corruption-fighting efforts nothing but a PJ - a Pathetic Joke, in the international community.

UPA Govt is in dire straits as corruption charges pile up like never before ... It's not new, but public sentiment is at the end of its tether. Can an organization be questioned for actions of decades ago? Are the same individuals who constituted the Government then, still in position? 

However, there still are innumerable questions which are as recent as the date, & the present Govt is yet full of individuals who are by no means in the clear. Even more dissappointing it is when the Premier of a country throws in the towel & cites powerlessness in face of a coalition. This is the same premier, of whom we were proud, at least tried to be proud, what an accomplished economist, applauded academician he is, remember an e-mail forward saying "Who does this Resume' belong to" ... celebrating the most learned Prime Minister in the world! Alas!

Is a learned leader indeed weak in practical situations? A similarly sophisticated PM Gujral, had spent 10 months leading the United Front ... until Congress withdrew its support again. Arguably, that was the most unstable coalition. Is it a matter of coincidence? Or is it that a cultured individual is too naturally courteous to show some backbone in face of chaos? Or do volatile coalitions consciously choose moppetty leaders? Or are these leaders truly "victims" of  unprincipled democracy?

The real question is, do we want leaders who project themselves as victims, however intellectual they be, however sound their economic strategies, they are tripping over their own "resources" ?