Should Statesman be religious in public?

Should a political leader, more of the face of the Nation openly showcase his tilts towards a particular religion? India is still a developing nation which is also going to be the most populated one by the coming decade. Because of the dearth of resource availability and immature governance, we are struggling to educate the citizen in terms of quality. In fact, unavailability of research facilities within the nation premises forces a number of students to seek education abroad. And the one remains incapable to move because of the number of constraints like family’s poor economic background etc. they either compromise with the quality of their education by performing their studies in a substandard institute or they have to deviate from their interest. In summary, we don’t have experts and quality of diversity compared to the quantum of our population. Hence we lack judgment and overall we lack critical guidance. If we do, it is short-sighted thus it prone to conflicts. Because a cricketer can critically comment on cricket & his ideas on other subjects would obviously lack key inputs.

Back to the question, should India’s statesman publically perform his religious tilts? The answer should be a resounding “NO”. With higher posts, comes higher responsibility. India’s preamble clearly reflects in its first line, the idea of secularism. Now if some politician needs to embark on a religious trip, he needs to travel as a citizen and must not carry the post/tag of his post. Neither should the media take any heed, until unless it is related to some policy analysis and similar. But the thing is, it is not happening and it goes trending into the public creating waves of several interpretations which country and general masses keep dealing with. This petty so-called news makes the headlines in front pages of the newspaper. These are the signs that such people and such agencies need replacement because this is a blow to the ethical conduct. There are chances that people from other religious beliefs may feel insecure because their lawmakers are polarising them. So, if "Namami Gange" project has to be propagated, it is because of its connection with the livelihood people & not because that religion is calling. It is secondary & has to be propagated as secondary.

There is another issue of populism. Leaders falsely make headlines and become the face of the nation. Wherever, on the other hand, a number of activists, educationist etc. experts on other fields remain undergrounded with no one around to respect/appreciate their work. Again, we don't have to pay a tiny bit of attention to the small verbal/digital fights the politicians are involved in. In fact, a policy or any amendments need to be discussed fact wised and not based on single stated blurs.