What is lagging with Indian leadership?

This is answer to a question posed in a discussion forum, I responded there and thought to share with our readers too...
Rational approach in governance was instituted with the Constitution of Republic of India which inspires and runs the individual, communities and institutions. The Constitution does not guarantee development (if we agree with its meaning) but ensures equal opportunity for all segments of India. Leadership excels where there is natural following due to its inherent capacity to lead the masses towards collective goals. The value system inculcated by the societies also encourages leaderships which take it forward to agreed path of development. It is not that leaders can go against the treaded path by the society, otherwise they would be reformers, and a path not chosen by many cannot be taken up by the governance system. It has to come from within to effective and result oriented implementation for running the systems in place. Any revolutionary ideas (which a leader often tries), would take a mass movement form which would always be anti establishment. While putting for the object of persuasion of ideas the leaders also provide a middle path for negotiation. Thus the answer lies in whether leaders are calling for a change in the system (long term), improve the system (middle term) or manage the system (short term). The pro and anti people concept is true only when after a period of time the systems remain unchanged with the changing times. The society moves ahead, not the system, it retains the character which looses its sense with progress of time. People who always try to find the gaps in the system to safeguard their individual, community and societal interest tend to get opposition from those who are left out. This is what has happened in the development discourse - areas, regions and people have been left out of 'development' because of lack of leaders from their areas and communities. The concept of nationalism is missing for the internal dialogue, yes it is there in context of international issues or national posers before the outsiders. Internal divisions and diversity gets support from the leaders who takes the benefit of 'their' people and looses national character inviting further dissatisfaction from the large people who are outside 'their' idea of leadership whom they are leading. Post independence, we have leaders leading the individual groups (caste, class, religions) not the nation. With the 73rd and 74th amendments to our Constitution, local governance has received lots of policy and financial support. But the local bodies lack the leaders who would like to remain at the 'same level governance' for a longer period of time. With the careerist politicians moving from village to block to district - state and central politics it is very difficult for them to lead the same crowd towards a common goal. This changing priority and jobs of the leaders (political) often does not allow them to lead from the front. Reformers must start with a level where improvements in the systems are required, say, at the village and city level, how community participation is ensured? Our governance system does not have ample scope for such participation at formal level. At the informal level only promises are made with little impact. Huge sums of money have been spent on numerous schemes often granted by central and state governments (where are people then). Who decides for whom? Government officials, local MP/MLA, Planners and economists? Method of development needs to be evolved and understood before we strike at the right end. People-Government relationships are often least understood because politicians neither represent either of them fully. It is where they stand makes the choice of governance easier. This is true from MP to Sarpanch. Till they realize ‘for what they stand for and whom they are answerable’, where is the scope of collective learning and implementation.