Barack Obama did not win the presidency of the United States of America because he is black. He won the votes of people across the spectrum of race, colour, occupation, sexual preference, gender, geography, income, class, education or any other factor. He made an extraordinarily uniting speech when he accepted his victory. He recognized the variety of his supporters, the enormity of the job before him as well as the huge expectations of the people. He spoke to Americans, not, as he said, to blue- or white-collared people. I cannot imagine there were many who did not respond emotionally to his words. His rhetoric was soaring. His thoughts were grounded in the vision of America as a land of opportunity for all. He knew that in his person, as a black, with one white parent, brought up mostly by white grandparents in very modest circumstances, residing in Indonesia as well as in the US, and with a Muslim middle name, this election demonstrated that Americans no longer distinguished between people on grounds on race but recognized ability.

In March, 1961 the US introduced affirmative action as a policy to promote access to education, employment and housing among disadvantaged groups — typically minorities and women. It was to do this through targeted recruitment programmes and preferential treatment to designated groups. Admissions and scholarships for education were available. These were on grounds of race, ethnicity, native language, social class, geographical origin, parental attendance at the university and /or gender. Special classes were held for blacks and Hispanics (and perhaps other races), before the beginning of the first semester in colleges and universities.

Obama may not have been a beneficiary of affirmative action for admission to Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He stood at the top of his class, and was editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year. He would have easily gained admission on merit alone in competition with students of any other race or class. According to Newsweek, his wife, Michelle, gained admission to Princeton University and Harvard Law School on the basis of affirmative action. She is said to have found the special classes held for blacks and Hispanics insulting.

There is inadequate data on the effect of affirmative programmes in the US on improving the opportunities for minorities and on their development. However, a person of the intellect and capability of Obama would have risen even without such a programme. His wife may have attended top institutions as a result of the programme.

Affirmative action programmes (reservations in India) are meant to provide opportunity to those who would otherwise have not got them. One does not know whether our Dalit or other backward classes political leaders like Lalu Prasad or Mayavati, benefited from reservations or, like Obama, rose on their own talent. However, none of them has shown Obama’s ability to reach across different classes and interest groups, or his total calm under severe tensions and aggravations, or his vision, dignity, deliberation, mastery over issues, articulation, rhetoric or presence. A recent entrant into American politics, Obama has shown all these attributes.

Obama was the product of unusual breeding and upbringing. India has yet to produce such a leader from the privileged classes, let alone the underprivileged. Reservations give opportunity. No doubt many talented young Dalits have risen in life because of the opportunity to educate themselves that reservations gave them. But how many have ceased to be discriminated against or ceased to carry in themselves a hard core of anger, bitterness and resentment even after they escaped from their less privileged lives? Even in the US, a top black lawyer or any other successful black person is an exception, an oddity that evokes condescension or exaggerated deference. Michelle Obama disliked special classes because they singled her out as a black. Reservations in India have singled out the underprivileged and they are seen by many to have got what they want in spite of being unqualified. There is low regard from those who got in through the ‘general’ category for fellow students or fellow employees in reserved categories. In the US too, there may be such disdain, but it is declining.

Except for the Indian institutes of technology, we do not have outreach programmes for the reserved categories, even if such programmes do single them out (like it did Michelle Obama who felt insulted that she had to attend them). It is high time that a concerted attempt was made to tutor those among the underprivileged who are selected for higher and professional education so that they can adjust to a different environment.

In independent India’s history only Jawaharlal Nehru (like Obama today in the US) had the words, the inspiration to catch the mood of the whole nation and the trust of most Indians, that made so many follow him without hesitation. In 1951, I remember I walked a few miles from Matunga to Chowpatty in Bombay to be in Nehru’s presence and, along with many lakhs of people, hear what he had to tell us. I do not recall doing this ever again.

Of Nehru’s successors, perhaps Lal Bahadur Shastri, had he lived after Tashkent, may have developed into a person who expressed the mood and desires of the people and may have been followed without question. His simplicity and transparent integrity (he was the only railways minister to take responsibility for a railway accident and resign) would have attracted a national following.

Indira Gandhi appeared at the outset to have her father’s commitment to the progress of the nation. Millions followed her but paranoia and a passion for centralizing all power within herself, lost her the trust and confidence of many. She was left with courtiers who stayed with her to enjoy the fruits of power.

Jagjivan Ram, an extraordinarily talented politician, a very capable minister who held a gamut of important ministries, with a large following all over India, respected by all despite being a Dalit, might have been the one to fit the need for a national leader who could have overridden his early deprivations and united the country. Jayaprakash Narayan made a huge mistake in awarding the prime ministry of the first Janata government to the divisive Morarji Desai instead. Desai was followed by the even more divisive and selfish Charan Singh. India lost its one opportunity after independence to get a prime minister who might have taken the country in a more united direction. Rajiv Gandhi may have been such a leader but he lacked a political education.

India is a vastly different society from the US. Race may not be as deeply embedded in American prejudice as is caste in India. Centuries of caste discrimination have conditioned both perpetrators and victims in a way that two centuries of racial discrimination may not have done in the US. In India, our political leaders have consistently perpetuated differences and encouraged special interests based on caste, language, region, religion. No political party tries to develop a consensus with other parties on the important issues. Every issue is divisive. Ideology, policy and vision are non-existent.

The forthcoming general elections will use the spread of terrorism and the unravelling of the economy leading to layoffs, unemployment, and inflation in different ways in political propaganda. But the selection of candidates, the targeting for votes, will be mostly on the basis of caste and community. At the end of it all will we get a prime minister who can rise above these divisions? Jagjivan Ram might have and possibly a more mature Rajiv Gandhi. It is sad to recognize that there is no one today who will rise above them.