It is always great to come back to London — and this time more so because I have managed to escape the high decibel 24/7 Commonwealth Games headlines. Or should I say — I have nearly managed to escape them because now the UK media is groaning about “Delhi belly” —claiming that over 40 of their swimmers have been affected by the poor quality of water in the swimming pools. No doubt the organising committee’s secretary general, Lalit Bhanot will unleash a quick repartee about “the different standards of their water and our water”, and thus shrug off the complaint like water off a duck’s back. But perhaps the swimmers were far too delicate to be released (without mini-filteration plants attached to them) into the turbulent swimming pools of Delhi. (Think of the positive side, at least there were no dogs paddling alongside — so what if there is a bit of tummy trouble?)
In one of the more snooty but serious comments in the Times, questions were raised whether these young swimmers should have been thus endangered. What India forgets is that is these Games are fiercely competitive, and the tiniest slip can mean a lost medal. These swimmers, it was said in the article “live in a cocoon of dedication, toil and sacrifice”. For each day in each swimmer’s life, the British public pays between £12,000 and £27,000. Altogether around £2 million a year of British Lottery funds, and soon another 15 million from British Gas will be spent on British swimmers as they prepare for the Olympics. These are not amateurs and are “far removed from the threat of mosquitoes, Delhi belly and four hour bus tours to the pool”. While these words may bite and wound our easily aroused Indian pride — they are true. Also it is true that, as the commentator points out, most of the Indian competition would not even have reached the first tier of the required level and is dependent on regional or family funding.
So whilst we are quick to blame Kalmadi &Co for their sh­o­rt-sightedness — what about the rest of India? Where were we when we should have been preparing our children for the fi­ght of their lives? Did we pour the lakhs of rupees required in­to their training ? Did we insist on proper conditions being pr­ovided to them? If we look for instant results in everything (po­ssible only in opening and closing ceremonies) — without the investment of love, funding and toil — we will continue to get poor headlines. So lets enjoy whatever gold tally we get — al­ongside the kicking the rest of the world is bestowing on us. And believe me, this is not racist, much though we would like to think it is!

Meanwhile, it has been an interesting week: watching David Cameron address the Conservative Party conference as Prime Minister of Britian for the first time, and also see the recently-elected Ed Miliband take over as the Leader of the Opposition with his Shadow Cabinet. Both leaders are young, new to the job and good at playing happy families. Though Ed Miliband, as an unmarried father, has had his share of criticism from women because he had (as yet) not signed on as “father” on his 16-month-old son’s birth certificate. It seems he may have been too busy — but women are wondering if this makes him the ultim­a­te commitment phobe? It is something which stands out in stark contrast because Mr Cameron has been steadfast in his support of marria­ge. He has been quick to be se­en with his children, and even carried his third child, Fl­or­ence, just a few months old, into the party conference.
Of course, the cynics say “Dave” is using every trick in the book to get people to trust him: he has to negate the image of the Conservatives as the “nasty party”. So far, sadly for Labour, “Dave” seems ahead of the game. He has been conciliatory in forming a coalition, is very quick to praise them, is removing old fears, even about Tories being homophobic, and is trying to come across as being Mr Nice Guy.
Mr Miliband, already, is creating the opposite image. He is emerging as a ruthless game player, in both his annihilation of his brother’s ambition, and in his careful manipulation of the trade unions which have supported him. But his biggest advantage is that he comes with zero expectations — as no one has yet seen him on the world stage. Even in his role as environment minister he was not a heavy weight. Therefore, no matter what he does — most people will be forgiving of any initial mistakes. He has four years in which to seize the initiative. In this battle of Nice Dave versus Tough Ed — it is difficult to predict the winner, since the UK is facing difficult economic times, with a growth rate of just 0.5 per cent .
Coming from India — where the emphasis is to Spend! Spend! Spend! — it is disorienting to be in country where the theme song is Cut!Cut!Cut! But India should learn a lesson from the welfare state which the UK so carefully built up, and is now dismantling. The benefit system in this country had been admirable — supporting education, health and the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly and stay-at-home mothers with children. But now that the circumstances have changed and the state is forced to downsize, the outrage among the middle classes is palpable. Losing benefits is something which pinches badly — at any time. Once you give something for free — it is always difficult to grab it back.
The Indian government is lucky that in that it seem to be pro-poor even though often the actual benefits never reach the intended recipient. Civil society is not organised enough to protest. But the day some charismatic leader unifies the growing civilian anger it will be difficult to conceal corruption or avoid providing the benefit. And why not? Like in the UK, India is ripe for an honest, young national le­a­der. But (with the exception of Rahul Gandhi) we have very few.
So what are the various political parties waiting for? If these yo­ung charismatic leaders cannot be found in India — they sh­o­uld launch an international search for youthful brilliant talent and lure them back to India to join politics. Remember, both Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi learnt their politics abroad — and for a good reason. Perhaps the children who st­u­dy and live abroad understand how the world views them and yet retain their patriotic fervour.They bring back fresh ideas and enthusiasm. Sometimes these lessons are learnt from the en­vironment around them, and many of the lessons are positive.
Think of this: already 100,000 volunteers have signed up for the 2012 London Olympics, and are being trained. Imagine if we had been able to do that two years earlier in India!

The writer can be contacted at kishwardesai@yahoo.com