Hi All,

We all know a political veteran passed away last month. Condolences came in thick and fast from every corner of the country and leaders, across the political spectrum, heaped praises on him and his ability to connect with the masses. Before i go into the topic, let me clarify that this post is not about this man.

Watching this spectacle made me ask one question to myself....how does one measure a leader's effectiveness. Who should be called a good leader and who is the rotten one.Should the number of years a person spent in politics be a figure of merit? Or should we take into consideration his/her volume of supporters after all ,as the phrase goes, there is strength in numbers...

I have observed that we Indians tend to get confused when asked to rate a leader and in good old Indian fashion play it safe and brand him a great leader. Especially when he is above his 60s at the time of death and had had a good fan following in his heydays. The media, for its part, starts to go on a sympathy overdrive for the very man they thrashed a few days back. And bingo....we have a 'great leader' who has just passed away. How sad...

So should we finetune the standards that are used to measure a leader's effectiveness and success. Pour in your thoughts....