[dropcap color=”yellow”]A[/dropcap] common criticism against Deepthi is that he too has turned out to be an undemocratic leader who narcissmically tries to remain in power despite he is sort of ‘outdated’ as far as the popularity factor is concerned. His effort to extend his period as the leader of x politic (which was technically successful today) is, according to many critics including former x, exemplary of his capabilities of totalitarianism. Hence, whatever attributed to him as leader who can bring ‘modernity’ to this country (like Lenin) cannot be true since his obscene desire towards dictatorship is obvious through these approaches. So, there is no any ‘Gademerian truth’ in his politics to convert the present nostalgic pre-modern historicism to modern. Is this criticism true? A true leader should not get carried away by some popular fanaticism. This is where we all went wrong after Independence. A leader should not compromise with the desire of the other (people, who will do anything to survive) or become an object for others’ to desire. He should not at least compromise with the ‘primitive kernel’ of the commonplace agency. ‘A teacher who torments his pupils for the sake of their own good is not ready to acknowledge his own sadistic investment in this torment’ .
