Lead from the front

Ratna Raman  

THE noun ‘example’ (from Latin exemplum; ‘take out’) has travelled  long distances   in  the English language. An example refers to something characteristic of its kind, such as ‘specimen’, ‘sample’ or ‘instance’. Examples illustrate and explain by taking on the functions  of metaphors and similes. In expressions such as ‘as black as the night’ or ‘as cold as ice’, night and ice serve as examples of blackness and coldness, while also providing points of   comparison (simile).

In life, extraordinary people inspire; rare objects are coveted and epochal events become reference points. In such instances, the example becomes something that is set apart (stands out) from the ordinary. Extraordinary persons become role models. Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther and Muhammad Ali ‘set examples’ that inspire countless others.

Examples also enrich and explain contexts in language. The nickname, ‘Simple Simon’ (metaphor), for example, indicates  a naïve and somewhat foolish person. ‘Setting an example’, however, is different from ‘making an example out of someone’ (punishment meted out as warning to others). A person in a position of power or authority invariably ‘makes an example out of someone’ in order to generate fear.

The noun ‘shahzada’ (princeling, both metaphor and simile) was used to describe Rahul Gandhi. It drew  attention to his privileged life, made possible by the ‘exemplary lives’ (adj, worthy examples) of great grandfather, grandmother and father who served as independent India’s  PMs at different points. Calling Rahul a shahzada also served to highlight the far more ordinary origins of the leader of the opposing party. 

Examples provide colour and momentum to public speeches and can also help to clarify the perspective of the speaker. Public speakers must therefore exercise utmost prudence when they ‘draw upon examples’ from their ‘repertoire’ (collection).

Rahul’s election as the leader of the Congress has been termed ‘Aurangzeb raj’. Ram raj and Aurangzeb raj are archaic constructs. Such examples ignore the reality of democratic India wherein the leader of the largest political party has to be elected to power every five years, to become PM. This is far removed from the dynastic political processes that were at work in Ancient and Medieval India.

Although under Aurangzeb, Mughal territories expanded extensively and India became the world’s largest economy, he has been made to forfeit the privilege of having a road named after him in Delhi. In Aurangabad, an unmarked grave, can be accessed from a bylane in Khuldabad. Aurangzeb, Akbar’s great grandson, gave orders for his burial along the lines of poor Indians. The paltry sum spent on his death is an exemplary life of austerity, commitment and administrative brilliance. It is time to revise idiomatic attempts ‘to give Aurangzeb a bad name and hang him’ (blackening someone’s reputation). 

Perhaps revisiting his life and times will equip our political leaders ‘to lead by example’ (build trust through productive leadership) and walk the talk instead.