Experiences of a common man!

Tag: Leadership

An illustration of Ralph by Andrés Vera Martínez

Ralph and the Failure of Western Idealism in Lord of the Flies

William Golding’s Lord of the Flies is often interpreted as a grim allegory of civilisation versus savagery. At its centre stands Ralph—a fair-haired, charismatic boy elected as the island’s first leader. Ralph represents order, reason, and the ideals of democratic leadership. But beneath his moral posture lies a character riddled with contradictions, blind spots, and, ultimately, helplessness. This article explores Ralph not as a straightforward hero but as a symbol of Western liberal ideals, whose failure mirrors real-world political collapses and moral compromises.

Ralph as illustrated by Andrés Vera Martínez
Illustration of Ralph by Andrés Vera Martínez

1. The Charismatic Beginning

William Golding establishes Ralph as an athletic and charming boy early on:

You could see now that he might make a boxer, … but there was a mildness about his mouth and eyes that proclaimed no devil.

— Chapter 1 (Page 5)

Ralph does not have much intellect, however. When he and Piggy find a shell on the beach, Ralph almost ignores it as an ordinary stone. Only when Piggy tells him it is a conch and that it can be used to call other survivors does he dig it up. Moreover, Piggy has to explain to him how to blow. As the sound of the conch summons the other boys scattered on the island, the boys look at him with awe. And when Ralph calls for an election for the chief, almost everyone approves of him. As Golding notes:

This toy of voting was almost as pleasing as the conch. Jack started to protest but the clamour changed from the general wish for a chief to an election by acclaim of Ralph himself. None of the boys could have found good reason for this; what intelligence has been shown was traceable to Piggy while the most obvious leader was Jack. But there was a stillness about Ralph as he sat that marked him out: there was his size, and attractive appearance; and most obscurely, yet most powerfully, there was the conch. The being that had blown that, had sat waiting for them on the platform with the delicate thing balanced on his knees, was set apart.

— Chapter 1 (Page 19)

Ralph is chosen as chief not because of his intellect or vision, but because of his appearance and presence. The boys are drawn to his aura rather than his leadership skills or his policy. In essence, Golding sets him up as a charismatic leader who is doomed to fail once that charisma fades.

2. Civilization without Compassion

Ralph’s leadership is built on rational goals: maintaining the signal fire, building shelters, and holding assemblies. However, his form of governance is structural but emotionally detached. Nor does he cherish intellect. The evidence can be seen early.

Ralph’s early mockery of Piggy—repeating his nickname, scoffing at his asthma—might seem harmless, but it establishes a hierarchy where intellect and vulnerability are ridiculed. Even his language (e.g., “Sucks to your auntie!” and “Sucks to your ass-mar!”) reveals how casual words reinforce social power. Though he later grows to respect Piggy, these small cruelties contribute to Piggy’s marginalisation.

Furthermore, he enjoys teasing Piggy, revealing an early alignment with the boys’ social hierarchy rather than justice.

“Piggy was a bore; his fat, his ass-mar and his matter-of-fact ideas were dull; but there was always a little pleasure to be got out of pulling his leg, even if one did it by accident.”

— Chapter 4 (Page 69)

Ralph is not a tyrant like Jack—but he is a bystander who benefits from unjust structures, at least initially.

Ralph also betrays subtle cruelty and prejudice when he:

  • dismisses the littluns’ fears of the “beast” instead of addressing them empathetically;
  • pays no attention to their discomfort (like sitting on a broken log (Chapter 5, Page 83)).
  • underestimates how fear, hunger, and myth shape behaviour more than logic does.

These oversights foreshadow the collapse of his authority.

3. A Leader Who Cannot Protect

Ralph builds shelter for the boys and offers protection from the weather, but when it comes to safeguarding the littluns or Piggy, he fails.

As previously stated, Ralph slams those who talk of the beast. Even though Sam and Eric (Samneric) had run away from the “Beast from the Air”, he does not set out to check out immediately or provide for protection of the others.

Meanwhile, the turning point in his leadership arrives when Jack strikes Piggy and breaks his glass. Ralph cannot prevent this act of violence. He shouts, accuses, but refuses to fight. He shuns himself for losing his cool. This shows that his moral authority lacks enforcement and his pacifism, while noble, enables further violence—Piggy’s eventual murder and his own persecution.

This failure parallels liberal democracies that falter in the face of rising authoritarianism, clinging to procedure as the world burns.

4. The Limits of Rationalism: The Beast and the Dark

Although Ralph insists the beast isn’t real, he too flees in terror when he sees the dead parachutist on the mountain. This moment is symbolic:

  • It exposes the limits of Enlightenment rationality when faced with visceral, irrational fear.
  • Ralph, like many liberal leaders, talks of reason but cannot confront the beast—within or without.

Unlike Simon, who seeks understanding, Ralph tries to suppress fear through order—and fails.

5. The Grown-Ups He Both Rejects and Needs

Ralph begins the story thrilled at the absence of adults, yet constantly reaches for them:

  • He dreams of his father’s ship rescuing them.
  • He insists on the signal fire as a way to restore contact with civilization.

This contradiction—yearning for autonomy but craving rescue—mirrors post-revolution societies and liberal states that seek freedom but collapse under the burden of self-rule.

6. Collapse and Awakening

By the end, Ralph is no longer a chief but a hunted animal. Jack has replaced democratic order with fear-based rule. Ralph finally understands the cost of all the small compromises, blind spots, and his own emotional detachment. He misses Piggy’s intellect, Simon’s kindness, and Samneric’s moral standing.

When the naval officer arrives, Ralph breaks down—not in relief, but in grief:

“Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart…”

Conclusion: Ralph as the Tragic Symbol of Failed Idealism

Ralph is not evil, nor foolish. He is a sincere, flawed idealist who tries to do good without fully understanding the emotional and structural forces around him. Through Ralph, Golding suggests that:

  • Civilization cannot survive on structure alone—it requires empathy, courage, and the will to confront darkness.
  • Without recognizing the beast within ourselves, even the best systems will fall.
  • And sometimes, when good men do nothing, the worst rise to power.

In that sense, Ralph’s failure is not just personal—it’s civilizational. He is not just a boy weeping for innocence lost; he is the last flicker of hope in a world that believed order alone could tame chaos.

INTERPLAY BETWEEN PROGRESS AND TRADITION IN SOCIETY

In the evolution of societies, the interplay between progress and tradition is a recurring theme. Choices between innovation and cultural preservation mire communities and are often in conflict with shifting identities, values, and aspirations. This tension not only influences policy-making and economic growth but also deeply affects the lives of individuals and the cohesion of communities.

Progress represents the desire for a better future. It is alluring in the sense that it promises to end traditional fears of poverty and economic stagnation. It also promotes innovation, bringing shifts from traditional practices to newer ones. Progressive ideas move societies to a newer path than tradition can offer.

Tradition, however, is a representation of old values and customs transferred from one generation to another. It is the collection of morals, ethics, and lifestyles that have continued for thousands of years. Tradition is the mirror through which culture can be viewed. When there is something new going on but there is also a desire to keep sticking to old traditions, there arises conflict. Such a conflict may arise at an individual level, for instance, trying to move from one technology to the next; in families, for example, trying to shift from traditional joint to nuclear; and also in societies, striving to adopt new philosophies that challenge the old established themes.

In Nepal, for instance, there have been conflicts in preserving tradition while also moving forward using technology. Urbanisation has brought tensions among the people as they want services they get in cities, but they also carry the nostalgia of village lives. Rapid technological change has benefitted the rich and the powerful, creating gaps between them and the marginalised communities. Where traditional thoughts have benefitted the elites, they have chosen to stagnate society and refuse technological advancements. The desire for the new generation to adopt new technology but the older generations’ refusal to do so is one of the causes of conflict.

Maintaining a balance between tradition and progress, thus, is an enormous challenge to policymakers. They have to keep traditionalists happy while also moving forward to better policies and innovations. Since societies deeply rooted in traditions are often stagnant, it is necessary to identify the major drives to carry them forward. For instance, the preservation of cultures of Newa tradition through the use of technology such as photos, videos, and digitalisation has not only supported tradition but also adopted technological progress. Therefore, policymakers should be able to identify the unique desires of the people following the traditions while supporting innovation.

Societies have incorporated both tradition and progress since they both represent our willingness to preserve ancient teachings, philosophies, and cultures while shaping the path for future generations. Although it could be difficult to strike a perfect balance between tradition and progress, bringing them together through dialogues, innovative policies, and practices yields a better society.

के नेपालीको दलीय सोच तोडिएला ?

वैशाख ३० गते स्थानीय तहको निर्वाचन आउन दुई दिन बाँकी थियो । घरमा कसलाई भोट हाल्ने भन्ने विषयमा छलफल हुँदै थियो । “भोट किन हाल्ने ?” मैले सोधेँ । “वडा समितिका अध्यक्ष र सदस्य बन्न कै लागि ठूला (भ्रष्ट) नेताको अघिपछि लाग्ने अनि आम नागरिकका टोलमा पनि नआउने उम्मेदवारलाई किन जिताउने ?”

बाबाले सम्झाउन खोज्नुभयो । “एकदुई जनाले भोट नहालेर के हुन्छ ? एकजनाले बढी भोट हाल्यो भने पनि कुनै एउटाले जितिहाल्छ । यति पर्सेन्ट ल्याउनैपर्ने भन्ने बाध्यता पनि छैन ।”

“त्यसो भए खराबमध्येबाट मात्रै छान्नुपर्ने हो त ? राम्रा उम्मेदवार दिन सक्दैनन् दलहरूले ?”

“दिँदैनन् ।”

“अनि किन भोट हाल्ने त ?” मलाई चित्त बुझ्दै बुझेन । “अनि चुनावअघि त यस्तो घमण्ड गर्छन् । चुनाव जितेको भोलिपल्ट देखि के होला ?”

प्रमुख पदका एक उम्मेदवारको रवैया मन परिरहेको थिएन । प्रष्ट विरोध गरेँ । “बालेन शाहले राम्रा र गर्न सकिने योजनाहरू ल्याएका छन् । इन्जिनियर हुन् । प्राविधिक ज्ञान पनि छ । एकचोटि मौका दिऊँ न ।”

तर पार्टीमा सक्रिय रहनु भएका मेरा परिवारका सदस्यहरूले आफ्नो दलबाट आएका उम्मेदवार बाहेक विकल्प नै देख्नुभएन । स्वतन्त्र उम्मेद्वारले जिते पनि वडाध्यक्षहरू पार्टीबाट आउछन् । केही गर्न सक्दैन । जित्न सक्नेलाई नै भोट दिनुपर्छ । ‘हुन त पार्टी बाहेकका मान्छेलाई टिक्न निदिएको जताततै देखेको हो तर एउटा मौका दिँदा त हुन्थ्यो होला । अनि मौका दिए त जसले पनि जित्न सक्छ नि !’ मनमनै भनेँ । चुनावको नतिजा जे भए पनि स्वतन्त्र विचारलाई समर्थन गर्ने निर्णय गरेँ ।

जे सुकै होला भन्दै भोट हालेको, बालेन शाहले जिते । मतगणना सुरु भएको ५ दिनसम्म त उनले जित्छन् जस्तो लागेकै थिएन मलाई त । काठमाडौं महानगरपालिका बाहेक धरान, धनगढी र जनकपुर उपमहानगरहरूमा पनि स्वतन्त्र रूपमा उठेका व्यक्तिहरूले चुनाव जिते । कुनै एउटा पार्टीको गढ भनेर चिनिएका धेरै ठाउँहरूमा अर्कै पार्टी वा व्यक्ति विजयी भए । स्थानीय निर्वाचनमा पहिलो हुने निर्वाचित हुने (प्रत्यक्ष) निर्वाचन प्रणाली छ जसको भरपुर उपयोग पार्टीगत राजनीतिबाट आजित भएका आम नागरिकले गरे ।

लोकतन्त्रमा दलहरूको भूमिका महत्त्वपूर्ण हुन्छ । हाम्रो त संविधानले नै “बहुदलीय प्रतिस्पर्धात्मक लोकतन्त्र”लाई आत्मसात् गरेको छ । त्यति मात्र हैन, समानुपातिक निर्वाचन प्रणालीले दलविहीनतालाई अस्वीकार गरिदिएको छ । यस्तोमा नेपालीहरूमा दलीय सोच हुनु अस्वाभाविक हैन । तर आफ्नो पार्टी सधैँ ठीक, सधैँ राम्रो भन्ने जुन तरिकाको सोच छ, त्यो परिवर्तन हुन जरुरी छ ।

आफ्नो स्वार्थ हेरेर कुनै राजनीतिक दलको आड लिने मानिसहरू धेरै सङ्ख्यामा छन् । उनीहरू न ती राजनीतिक दलका सिद्धान्त बुझ्छन्, न त नीति अनुसार चल्छन् । लाखौं रूपैयाँ “नेता”हरूका खल्तीमा भरिदिने हो पनि जोसुकै त्यो पार्टीको खुङ्खार नेता भनेर चिनिन्छ । यस्तो विचलनले पार्टीका इमानदार कार्यकर्ताको चित्त दुखाएको छ । यसको परिणाम चुनावमै देखिएको छ । टाउकेहरू अझै पनि अन्तर्घात र धाँधली भनिरहेका छन् । आफ्ना गल्ती सुधार्ने कुनै सोच देखिँदैन उनीहरूमा ।

यस्तोमा पार्टीका “नेता” भनाउँदालाई लाइनमा ल्याउने काम कार्यकर्ताको हो तर उनीहरू पनि आफ्नै स्वार्थमा अल्मलिएका छ्न् । नेतृत्व तह असहमति सहन सकिरहेको छैन । हरेक सिद्धान्त त प्रक्रियाको निर्मम समीक्षा हुनुपर्छ भन्नेहरू नै विरोधका मसिना स्वरहरूदेखि झस्केका जस्ता देखिन्छन् । यस्तो वाक्क लाग्दो राजनीतिको विकल्प केही ठाउँमा युवापुस्ताले खोज्न थालेको देखिन्छ ।

यद्यपि धेरै ठाउँमा सशक्त इमानदार विकल्प छैनन् । संघ र प्रदेशमा संसदीय व्यवस्था भएकाले राजनीतिक दलको विकल्प पनि राजनीतिक दल नै हुन् । कि त नयाँ इमानदार दल आउनुपर्‍यो कि त अहिलेका बेइमान दलहरू सुध्रिनुपर्‍यो । देश हाँक्ने मौका पाएका नेता र तिनका दलको त सुध्रिने छाँट छैन । पहिले इमानदार राजनीति गर्ने भनेर खुलेका पार्टी पनि कुर्सीकै राजनीति गर्न अग्रसर भएको देखिएकाले गर्दा नयाँ पार्टीहरूमा झट्ट विश्वास गर्ने अवस्था देखिएको छैन । कोभिड दौरान देखिएको “Enough is Enough” आन्दोलन संस्थागत गर्न चुकेकाले त्यस आन्दोलनको नेतृत्व पनि सशक्त हुने कुरामा शङ्कै छ । तथापि, पहिलेभन्दा फरक गर्न सक्ने मौका भने उनीहरूमा छ ।

नेपालमा अहिलेको जस्तो दलीय सोच हट्ला त ? असम्भव जस्तै देखिन्छ । तर दलमा आवद्ध भए पनि नभए पनि काम गर्न सक्ने मानिस छान्न भने नागरिकले चाहेको देखिन्छ । कुनै वादभन्दा पनि असहज परिस्थितिमा समेत भरोसा गर्न सक्ने नेतृत्व नागरिकले खोजेका छन् । खोजेजस्ता नेताहरू भेट्न गाह्रो होला तर केही प्रयास यही नै रहनेछ ।

भेडा

images

नेपालको चुनावी सन्दर्भमा “भेडा” शब्द एकदम प्रचलित छ । कुनै बेला सर्वमान्य नेता गणेशमान सिंहले “काठमाडौंंका जनता भेडा हुन्” भन्नुभएको थियो भन्ने सुन्दा सानामा रमाइलो लाग्थ्यो । प्रजातान्त्रिक शक्तिलाई नपत्याएको झोंक थियो सायद उहाँको ।

वैशाख ३१ गते पहिलो चरणको स्थानीय चुनाव सकियो । “भेडा” शब्द फेरि चर्चामा आयो । पहिलेजस्तो नेताको भाषणमा होइन, जनताको सामाजिक सञ्जालको भित्तामा ।

भेडा को हुन् ?

वर्तमान सन्दर्भमा भेडा भन्नाले कांग्रेस, एमाले, माओवादी लगायतका लामो समयसम्म शासन गरेका दलहरूलाई भोट हाल्ने जनता हुन् रे । नयाँ दलहरूलाई भोट हाल्ने (खासगरी काठमाडौंको सन्दर्भमा) चाहिँ भेडा होइनन् रे । मलाई यस्तै भनेका थिए एकजनाले फेसबुकमा । यसरी बुझ्दा मतदानमा सहभागी अधिकांश जनता (म सहित) भेडा हुन् ।

अर्को परिभाषा पनि भेटिन्छ यदाकदा । “राम्रा”लाई भन्दा “हाम्रा”लाई भोट हाल्ने पनि भेडा हुन् । यसमा मेरो विचार के छ भने नि “हाम्रा राम्रा” हरूलाई भोट दिनु सर्वोत्तम हो । तर “राम्रा” जति “हाम्रा” हुन् भन्ने ग्यारेन्टी नभएसम्म जनताले आफ्ना नजिकका (“हाम्रा”) लाई नै भोट हाल्छन् । एउटा उखान छ त, “टाढाको देउता भन्दा नजिकको भूत वेश” ।

पुरानाका विरुद्ध नयाँ

यहाँ नयाँको पनि अपव्याख्या भएको देख्दा छ्क्क पर्छु म त । भर्खर खुलेका दलहरू अनि युवाहरू नयाँ हुन् रे । नयाँ हुन त सोच पनि नयाँ हुनु पर्‍यो नि । तालिवानहरू युवा शक्तिका रूपमा अफगानिस्तानमा देखा परे । तर तिनले पुरातनवादी शरिया कानुनमा जोड दिए ।

नेपालमा भएका “नयाँ” दलहरूमा पनि नयाँपन छैन । बाबुराम भट्टराईको नयाँ शक्ति पार्टीलाई नयाँ ठान्ने युवाहरू छन् यहाँ । भट्टराईको अध्यक्ष बन्ने सपनाको उपज थियो यो पार्टी । भयङ्कर ठूलो सभा गरेर पार्टी घोषणा गरे हाम्रा डाक्टरले । हजारौंले वर्ष दिन नपुग्दै पार्टी छाडे । बौद्धिकताको कदर भएन भन्दै थिए ।

दुई महिना अघि बीबीसी नेपालका पूर्वप्रमुख रवीन्द्र मिश्रले घोषणा गरेको तर दर्ता नभएको “साझा पार्टी” सामाजिक सञ्जालमा भाइरल बन्यो । युवाहरूलाई तान्यो पनि । कामनपाको मेयरमा पूर्वसचिवलाई उठायो । झट्ट हेर्दा उनी योग्य देखिए तर ब्यूरोक्रेटहरूलाई जनताले पत्याउने बेला भयो त ? हुन त सबैलाई एउटै कित्तामा हाल्नु ठीक नहोला तर देश बिग्रनुमा कर्मचारीहरूको असक्षमताको ठूलो हात छ भन्ने अधिकांश ठान्छन् । अनि साझा पार्टीको घोषणा अर्को एउटा पार्टी विवेकशीलको विरुद्धजस्तो पनि देखियो ।

विवेकशील-मैले अलि भिन्न होला भन्ने ठानेको दल । भिन्नता देखाएको पनि थियो । टायर बालेर गर्ने आन्दोलनलाई प्लेकार्ड बोकेर, हल्लाखल्लाको विरोध छाडेर मौन विरोध सिकाउने दल । म कति इम्प्रेस्ड भएको थिएँ । स्वास्थ क्षेत्रमा सुधार हुनुपर्ने माग राखेर डाक्टर गोविन्द केसीले अनसन बस्दा साथ दिने पहिलो दल पनि यही थियो । तर त्यही अनसन ताका मैले स्वास्थ सेवा लिन गएका हजारौंले दु:ख पाएको देखें । काठमाडौंका निम्न/मध्यम वर्गीय र बाहिरबाट उपचारका लागि आएका जनताले दु:ख पाउनु जायज हो त भन्ने प्रश्न गर्दा जायज हो भन्ने पनि भेटिए । विवेकशीलले त्यस बेला एउटा आयामबाट मात्रै हेर्यो भन्ने मेरो ठम्याई हो । तर उनीहरू भर्खर पार्टीका रूपमा आउँदै थिए अनि आन्दोलनको केन्द्रमा पनि थिएनन् । विवेकशील बारे मैले सोचेको पनि थिइन त्यो बेला ।

यसपाली चुनावमा काठमाडौं महानगरको मेयर पदमा २१ बर्षिय रन्जु न्यौपाने “दर्शना” लाई उम्मेदवार घोषणा गर्यो । उनको पहिलो अन्तर्वार्ता हेरिसकेपछि मलाई लाग्यो, “अरू कोही योग्य थिएनन् यो दलमा ?” अनि त्यसमाथि विवेकशीलको नारा, “काठमाडौंलाई फेरि सुन्दरमाडौं बनाउछौं” । काठमाडौं कहिल्यै पनि सुन्दरमाडौं थिएन । काठमाडौं काठमाडौं नै हो र काठमाडौं नै रहनुपर्छ । फेन्सीफुल शब्दको जालमा पार्न त पुरानाले नै जानेकै थिए त । नयाँ कसरी फरक भए ? सपना देखाउन त पुरानाले पनि देखाएकै थिए । गफकै राजनीति गर्ने भए नयाँ-पुरानामा नाम बाहेक अरू के फरक भयो त ?

नयाँ र पुरानामा खासै फरक रहेनछ भन्ने मलाई त्यो दिन थाहा भयो जुन दिन मैले मेयर उम्मेदवारले नसुहाउदो भाषण गरेको भिडियो हेरें । कति कृत्रिम र भद्दा थियो त्यो भाषण । विवेकशीलको मौन राजनीति तोडियो । गालीको राजनीति सुरु भयो । पुराना र नयाँ बिचको खाडल पुरियो । चुनाव अघिको मौन अवधिमा पनि हल्ला गर्न जब विवेकशील चुकेन, म हतास भएँ । नयाँ पनि पुराना जस्तै नै रैछन् । शक्तिमा नपुग्दै नियमको अपव्याख्या गर्न सक्ने दल शक्तिमा पुग्यो भने के होला ? मैले यही सोचेँ ।

पुराना दलमा सबै खराब नै छन् त ?

एमाले, कांग्रेस, माओवादीमा फटाहा मात्रै छन् भन्ने ठान्छन् टीनएजर्स । नयाँ पार्टीका भविस्य यिनै मा अडिएको छ । हो, माथि पुगेका मिडियामा सधैं देखिने केही नेता खराब छन् जसले इमान्दार मान्छेलाई छायामा पारेका छन् । युवाहरूले छायामा परेका त्यस्ता मान्छेलाई नदेख्नु नै नेपाली राजनीतिको मूल समस्या हो । तर स्थानीय तह जनताले “हाम्रा राम्रा” मान्छे चिनेका हुन्छन् । अपवाद छाडेर जनताले धेरैजसो सक्षम मान्छे नै छान्छ्न् स्थानीय तहमा । त राम्रा मान्छे चुन्ने जनता भेडा कसरी भए ? केही खराब नेतालाई देखाएर जनता नै भेडा हुन् भन्नू कतिको जायज कुरा हो ?

नयाँहरूले बुझ्नु पर्ने

मेयर, उपमेयर र केही वडा पदमा एकदुई जना उठाउँदैमा विकल्प भइँदैन । यदि नयाँ दलहरूले बनेको “नयाँ” शब्द व्याख्या एकछिन मान्ने हो भने दुईजना नयाँ आएर केही हुँदैन, १६० जना पुराना आएपछि (काठमाडौंको सन्दर्भमा) । अनि जनतालाई भेडा भन्दा त्यसो भन्न हुन्न नभन्ने गणेशमानका पाला देखिका र भर्खर टुसाएका नेताहरुमा त म पटक्कै फरक देख्दिन ।

Great Power, Greater Responsibilities

“I am not so sure. I had proven, as a very young man, that power was my weakness and my temptation. It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well.”                                                                                      (Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows  by JK Rowling)

I had never thought of Harry Potter series as the one which consists of a sense of revolution at the core. When I had read it two years ago, I had forgotten to notice this and the last chapters of the last book had been lame to me. Now when I read it two years later, I see that Lord Voldemort was neither as powerful nor as clever as that mentioned in the earlier books of the series.

The series contains in its core the struggle for power. Where on this world there is no struggle for power? There are people, who to invoke fear among others, destroy the lives of thousands. They are feared all over and they overpower those who live. Such tyrants never get any respect. And among those who hate them, comes out a leader, who encourages the others to fight.

Harry Potter is one such leader, whose destiny had been changed by the murder of his parents. Voldemort- a tyrant and a fool, who had always seen people begging to him for their lives and kills everyone on his way for the fun of it, was affected by the willingness of Harry’s parents to die instead of their child. The boy unknowingly gets pulled into the struggle since.

The above quote is an important to understand the core of the series. It also carries the question of morality. How many humans have understood that having power might make them corrupt – that they are not worth it? Very few people had understood that. Mahatma Gandhi, for instance and in our case, Ganesh Maan Singh were able to understand the corrupting nature of the power they had to hold. We always think that they could have done better as the heads of each of their countries, but they understood somehow that they were not worth the power they would have. They believed that good leaders are those to whom leadership is thrusted, not those who go and seek for it.

Albus Dumbledore, once he realized that he would not do well with power, confined himself, helping the revolution against the power-seekers – Grindelwald and Voldemort. The above quote also reminds me of another character in the series, who evolves on his own into a leader- Neville Longbottom. He could have suffered the same fate as Harry, and could have been the hero in the story or would not have existed at all. By the end of the series, he gets the recognition as a leader of revolution against Voldemort. Not only that, he becomes worth of the Gryffindor’s sword- previously used by Harry and Ron Weasley – and destroys Nagini- the last horcrux.

The search for an able, worthy leader goes on in the real world, though. And one in a million, we can find such a leader. One who has the power over all, with a lot of respect and also with sense of responsibility towards all is the leader we want for the world. Even more for our Nepal. We need the one who understands these words quoted by Ben Parker to his nephew, Peter (Spiderman):

With great powers, come great responsibilities.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén