Anna Hazare arrested. Crowds swell in support. What will happen?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

'Anna Hazare's movement is anti-social justice, manuwadi' - The Economic Times

ok, here is a view, more in tune with my line of thinking.

i didnt know till know, how to express it effectively. but this article does.

let us not get carried away by the old man

Kunjuppu,

Exactly my feeling also. I do not subscribe to the dalits' pov and fear but am certainly convinced that Dr Ambedkar's caution against 'satyagraha' as the 'grammar of anarchy', is 200% correct and that is why Father of the Nation, Gandhi's India is a non-law obedient country. Much of the corruption and other social evils in India spring from out of this basic mindset of the people that if they violate the law they are heros!

By now (20-08-2011, evg.6.00 P.M. IST) even the channels floating AH have slowly started including the anti-AH povs. Justice Shah says "Anna is not India and India is not Anna". Aruna Roy says AH's fast is tantamount to blackmailing the Govt. MMS says the LPB is under discussion and there is always scope for "give and take". I feel happy that my views are coming true!

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Jo dhakke se peeche chalthi hai usko aap kya kahenge maharaj?

Gadha kaha jaay! I wish you do not mean me?

 

[subbudu1]

this is called revolution and fits the agenda of impatient citizens who cant wait for 5 years.

if all this black mailing could succeed in democracy and if anna could don the shoe of a dictator for middle class bourgeoisie, he is again wrong. we had not come across something like 'Tienanmen square' in india, and will not in future too.

given a chance to rajnikanth, narendra modi,deve gowda,bal thakre, kazhagams, indian catholic institutions, muslim league, dalit panthers et al, have a much better mass organizing capacity even to seize the parliament. anna's crowd is minuscule.

glad, our democratic set up is so intertwined in such a way, that it has its own checks and balances already in place to counter this. the president/ steel frame of india, ie administrative services/judicial system is all there to have a counter check on the elected system.


systems and laws are already in place. who is going to implement, unless every individual stops it. as i said earlier, ITC's business has only increased, after the enacting the smoking ban law.. so, how do we control smoking. its by bringing awareness among people. the society should change..

I dont know why anna is compared to a dictator. He is surrounded by a crowd and there are two options
1. Inspite of the limited support to Anna, Government based on its political considerations accepts demand. Unlikely situation. But this is not giving into a dictatorship no more than giving into the demand of a section of an electoratic by any other political part. End of the day , even this decision is taken by elected representatives. Remember there is no looting, violence to force the government. If the government accepts it is a mere game of electoral politics as is always being played by them to manipulate our innocent citizens to vote for them.
2. The Government's hand is forced as the support for Anna far exceeds the support for the elected members. Something like a mass revolution which is possible only when every class finally join his movement

In either case Anna's agenda is accepted by Government in a democratic manner.
Wait for 5 years is what people have done all our life.People had no option to select the right guy for the country and choose to assert their right democratically bu supporting Anna and attending his meetings.

 

[ShivKC]

man in the mirror speaking.. hello, do you hear me?

middle class genX thinks that they are decent folks only to be looted by corrupt, politicians. but the real indian story is not a fable but art cinema.

no marriage goes without the bribery called dowry. most businesses cannot survive or remain competitive without stashing undeclared earnings. taking part-payment by cash during the land deals, to evade tax is an accepted norm everywhere. Yet we indians moan with others about corruption.

that sheer hypocrisy got revealed when the film stars took an u-turn from supporting anna, after hearing the IT dept started questioning BABA the money stashed in foreign lands. This genX finds ok with baba, to whom austerity means leaving all worldly pleasures, but comes with an exception to fly private jets.

Most of us feel, politicians were the real evil and that the tax-evading businessmen like ani’s/wallas/niras were just smart. Its evident from the public rage raja had it on, but the c.e.os of reliance/uninors/dbs who bribed to get the benefit were absolved conveniently by mr.public, who seems to be convinced, that business men has to be practical ( in bribing) but politician has to be mr.clean..

behind all these corruption, there is the rise of a new emotion, the youth urban, who is more interested in the nation than before, and anna quickly struck a cordial note with them. Unlike those of 60-80’s youth, who had no hopes with India and moved out of India ,this genX, who knows that escaping out of country is not an easy thing any more now, wants to see india as a better place.

sadly, this new gen also lacks knowledge about our democratic set up, cos he was brought up with American/dubai dreams, which failed off late. they are more interested in technology/gadgets/money/entertainment/stock market. Facebook and times of india’s supplementary pages (yellow) is a hot pick for them, but not hindu/express/tuglak/bbc. talking about values of democracy is greek to them. they are always for praise to APJ kalam, who to me, is definitely not a person fit for that hot seat.

here, anna smartly capitalized and commanded hero worship from this bit of ignorant innocent crowd.

i recollect the bjp’s India shining campaign, highlighting its 6 lanes roads, IT revolution and forex reserves, targeting the genx through bulk sms. but Aam admi cared the heck, and chose MM.Sigh to be their boss. that’s the beauty of democracy, and that’s what aam admi wants and you and i can see that aam admi in parliament benches, make street fights always (like you and me)!

so lets give this law making job to those aam admis sitting in lok saba, not to any single individual, be it anna, akka,tata or birla!

and, and, and, it is unacceptable for anna to blackmail a democratic republic by threatening to commit suicide, though akkas and thangais wants to name it as fasting.

 

[Yamaka]

This is what I expect to happen:

1. Delhi Police must have a hawkish eye on potential trouble-makers, all those anti-social elements (ultra Right to Moist to Indian Mujahideens and others): Proactively arrest them and keep the Ramlila Maidan a calm place for Anna's Hunger Strike.

2. Let Anna go on for 15 days of Hunger Strike; if he violates the Agreement already signed, the Police Commissioner must tell public "Anna is not following the Agreement and he is violating the law".. Let the Aam Admi come to know who is violating the laws of the land.

3. Law Minister or Home Minister must face the Press often and explain to Aam Admi as to what's happening (preferably on a daily basis) on the Lokpal Bill in the Parliament.

4. Ignore all the political rhetoric of Team Anna; Let the Gov't focus on its prime duty of passing a well thought out Anti-Corruption Lokpal Bill according to the Procedures and Process of the Parliament.

Let it take 1 month or 6 months... who cares?

5. If Anna loses the critical weight, take him to the hospital and force feed him.

Ask the Team Anna to pay for the hospital charges!

Wait & watch.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

hi bhairavan,

may i please request you, not , imagine what my (or folks who think like me) would hypothetically behave.

i have pointed out what i think is a serious shortcoming in anna's movement. ie absence of inclusiveness.

Inclusiveness or lack of it is being repeatedly quoted here.

What is the basis of characterizing this movement as a non-inclusive movement?

Do folks of you ilk fear that JLP will only go after politicians that belong to lower class people or communities classified as backward class, minorities etc?

Do folks of your ilk believe that JLP will only take on issues that affect upper class people or communities classified as forward class?

If so, what is the basis of such fears and beliefs?

What is preventing the lower class people from joining this movement?

also, i have serious reservations about the extra parliamentary nature of the movement. india is not egypt or soviet union. it is an elected legal full fledged democracy.

I accept that there is some validity to this argument. But, if folks of your ilk think that JLP is unconstitutional, how come you do not oppose other unconstitutional institutions such as National Advisory Council? Are members of NAC elected? It has been existing for the past several years and has been actively framing laws. Why no such opposition to NAC from folks of your ilk? Why no opposition to ministry of minority affairs? How can a secular government discriminate people based on religion in distributing secular benefits?

i am not so sure about anna. i feel it is an elitist middle class movement, increasingly hijacked by hindutva politicians. i think that alone is a
guarantee for its failure - absence of inclusiveness. those left out, will sabotage it, no matter what.

Folks of your ilk are the ones who are helping to sabotage the movement with your unfounded accusations.

 

[ShivKC]

What is preventing the lower class people from joining this movement?
.

if i may interpret here, i would rephrase this question.

why lower class & upper class are not joining this movement?

why ambanis/birlas/baniyas/MNC's/bollywood are not uttering a word about it? how much corruption matters for those who are below BPL , who seems to be happy getting their ration of rice entirely free, if not delivered at their door steps.

india is not the reflection of just anna hazare, kiran bedi and all those 25000 assembled in ramlila grounds.

indians want something elese. a social awareness about corruption. we need to run a campaign like Polio vaccine/HIV/ breast feeding. Aam addmi was smart enough to pick those points much faster.

for those who are on lower class, has nothing to say about corruption. after all, they dont have money to corrupt some one. thats why they keep themselves away from this subject.

PS: would you mind frequently using the term 'ilk'. hope you are aware of its usage in english. lets share a friendly talk. thank you.

 

[Nara]

K, you have restricted your objections to who AH is and what sort of tactics he is employing to achieve his goal. You have not said very much about his proposal for JLP itself.

I am not sanguine about those AH is surrounding himself with. But, at least till this point in time, AH and his supporters have eschewed violence, it is the police that used heavy-handed tactics earlier with the other fellow.

I don't know very much about AH. So, this is not a trick question, I really like to know why you say AH is cranky and senile old man with an inflated ego and high sense of self importance? Why do you think AH's style is akin to thuggery?

You used the word "blackmail" to describe AH's tactics. What did AH really threaten GOI with, that amounts to blackmail?

The next complaint is that AH is taking a tough stand, like, "either-my-way-or-highway". Is this really true? From the news reports what I gather is he did end his first fast simply on the promise that his suggestions for LP will be included in the bill.

Now, when I compare the two proposals I have no doubt GOI didn't live up to that promise. So, IMO, it is MMS who fell short and AH is not ready to simply go away. From all this I get the impression it is MMS who is taking a "my way" approach in the hope brand AH can be tarnished by changing the focus of debate from corruption to AH the person, the egomaniacal, obstinate, dement, one who cares to be next Gandhi more than poor people. Perhaps I am missing something. I am really puzzled, how could I get it so wrong that my view is just the opposite of what you are saying. What am I ignoring, help me out, K.

There is also a line of thinking expressed here that direct protests like Egypt and Tunisia are not legitimate in a democratic country like India. This is a careless argument, IMO.

To assemble and petition the government is among the basic of natural rights of citizens of all liberal democracies. Any state that restricts these rights will be called tyrannical -- allowing voting in regular intervals will change nothing.

Only despotic tyrannies crave for trappings of democracy like voting, but places onerous restrictions on expression of dissent. Counties like Saudi, Syria, Bahrain, citizens are allowed to vote, and then they have to go home and mind their business, leaving the "elected" to make laws and govern without any interference from its citizenry. Such countries cannot be democracies just on the weight that the citizens get to vote every 4 or 5 years.

Direct public action to protest the laws deemed unjust is the mark of a true democracy. If the grievances are frivolous it won't garner sufficient support and the protest will peter out and go away.

On the other hand, if the grievances make a connection and garners enough public support, then, the government will be forced to act. The elected would like nothing better than to be left alone to do whatever they like. It is up to the citizenry to be vigilant and hold the elected officials continuously accountable, not just at election time. The powerful will never give up power voluntarily.

All major liberal advances have come after prolonged public protest. Such direct actions were severely criticized contemporaneously, similar to the criticisms AH is being subjected to. Examples include, anti-slavery movements, Suffragette movements, Indian independence, US Civil rights movement, People Power movement of Philippines, the Arab Spring, etc., etc. In each of these cases, the agitators were denounced by the established order as trouble makers, gangs, thugs, etc.

..i have pointed out what i think is a serious shortcoming in anna's movement. ie absence of inclusiveness.

This article does not present any documentation that there is systematic exclusion of Dalits within AH circle. It cites opinions of couple of eminent people, both of whom I respect -- Chandrabhan Prasad, a respected opinion maker, and Kancha Ilaiah, a respected social thinker and activist.

Could this simply be a case of media push back, to try to discredit AH and sidetrack the discussion from JLP, to, AH and Dalit?

Anyway, IMO, the article raises three objections, (i) what AH is doing is undemocratic, (ii) absence of Dalits in team AH, and (iii) the caste problem is more pressing than corruption, by several orders of magnitude more severe than political corruption.

I have already discussed (i) earlier.

The second charge (ii), is serious one. If this is inadvertent they may be allowed to correct it. If it was deliberately, then they must be called out. The ET article is a welcome one in this regard. Let us also make sure we don't get sidetracked from the main issue here -- corruption.

As far as (iii) is concerned, I think the corruption and caste problems are interrelated to the extent any improvement in one front will have positive effect in the other front as well. Also, there is no need to choose between the two issues, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

don't look at anna as a person, but look at his points in his JLP bill !!

why one should take steps to analyse what is good or bad in anna's version. what you and me see it as a good law, may not be good to many other citizens. so no single person can claim, that, my set of laws are right for the country, and black mail it with his suicide.

lets take an eg from anna's own gang, baba ramdev. he was against de-decriminalization of gay sex and filed an appeal against high court order. for sure there are many would support him, and you & me may oppose him. like anna, baba may sometime later, may give a suicidal threat to govt, asking a bill to criminalize the gay love. during that many of lower class and fundamentalists may say, look, dont worry about baba as a person, but look what he and his bill says, which has a valid point!. few will say his idea as good, and few would say utter nonsense.

in this confusion of choosing what is good and bad, democracy comes in to the role. no one can decide what is good and what is wrong for the country, except the parliament.

similarly, i dont know if anna version of LP bill have very many good or very many bad points. i am not interested to worry about that. what is good to you and me many not seen as good by aam admi, until his representatives collectively decide it with Aye/Nay.

for eg, sometime back a post came up here saying, highest top officials should be included in JLP, including chief justice. for anna followers, it seems to be a good point. but the entire parliament including opposition don't see it as good , but anna wants it to be included against the wish of ruling/opposition parties..

so i think, there is no meaning in evaluating about anna's version of bill to highlight the goods.

however, to make this discussion interesting, one can pick up few points in that bill and have an interesting discussion.

 

[ShivKC]

 

[sangom]

I was a 100% supporter of Anna when he went on fast a few months ago demanding a LPBill to be brought before the Parliament. GOI finally acceded to his demand and a committee was also set up. Since the GOI and law ministry found that the said committee's thinking was not implementable, the GOI got another bill drafted and has brought it before the Parliament. Now Anna insists that the govt should take up his JLP bill and get it passed before end August 2011. I consider this as either blatant blackmail of the GOI and that too because the GOI and more especially MMS had been receptive to the earlier demand of Anna and his team.

Members supporting Anna now may kindly put themselves in the position of the PM and imagine whether they will like to run their government according to the demands of one public personality or another (however great a Mahatma he may be). Secondly, even if you, as the PM, are a staunch supporter of Anna and would be only too willing to get things done as per Anna's wishes (or dictat?), is it possible for you to tame the opposition and bring it to obey your dictat and pass the bill into Law before the set date?

In this connection will anyone be able to say whether Mohandas Gandhi, ever went on a fast unto death demanding an enactment into law by the British Govt within a deadline fixed by him? I do not think so.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Unbelievable.
Just now I was watching the TV Channels showing visuals from New Delhi, Bombay, Bangalore, Kokata and other cities, the surging mass support for Anna Hazare. I could not believe how our Countrymen have raised against Corruption at last. I hope at least now the Neros in the National Capital will stop fiddling the same tune and face the reality and take steps in the right direction to kill the demon of corruption on this Sri Krishna Jayanthi day.
Sri Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum.
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[kunjuppu]

View attachment 1239

hilarious

 

[kunjuppu]

nara,

i am unable, due to lack of sheer skills, to answer your post in like quality re logic. what i stated was simply my take on the whole anna affair.

inspite of his many warts, i have deep respect for jawahar nehru, for bestowing, implementing and abiding by the parliament and its rules. even nehru did not get all that he wanted out of the parliament. and he was a giant of his times.

for whatever reason, the normal parliamentary life is 5 years. for better or worse, the citizens have decided on a group of folks, to run the country
on their behalf for the set duration.

it is normal to be dissatisfied, seek changes and implement reforms. the dravidian revolution and the reforms that followed, is a good example,
of idealism embracing the realms of power, bringing about far reaching changes in a short period of time, and ultimately sinking in the ensuing
tendency of power, which tends to corrupt.

all that anna needed, is to garner together a movement, and keep on putting the pressure to maintain the momentum, so that at the time of
the next election, his views are reflected by those whom are elected. they could together, have had a manifesto, which could even be a
single focussed one of JLP rules. implement it and ensure that it is operational. and resign en masse.

to demand a set of laws, which anna feels is the remedy to all corruption related evils of india, and too time box for implementation, to me is
unreasonable and unrealistic. it is undermining all the pillars of our governing bodies, and sets a dangerous precedent ie the rule of the streets.

it is for this alone, i wish to oppose anna. any movement needs time and effort, to build, nurture and mature. i feel anna's thambis and thangais,
by and large, are armchair activists, who could, at the most, take a few hours from their high teas and golf/tennis clubs, to attend a demo or
two, and go back to their black labels or kingfishers.

which is why, i think, anna has yet to light up the imagination of a more thinking states like tamil nadu, kerala. though paschim bonga is now in
the hands of another mercurial lady, who will probably use anna for her own ends.

to put it in one sentence: naive anna has become the tool of bigger peruchaaLis.

 

[Nara]

...i am unable, due to lack of sheer skills, to answer your post in like quality re logic.

K, please, this may be effective with others, but I am not one to fall for stoop-to-conquer tactic, .

all that anna needed, is to garner together a movement, and keep on putting the pressure to maintain the momentum, so that at the time of the next election,

K, if MLK was given this advice and if he had adopted it, Jim Crow will still be law of the land. There are many peaceful ways in which change can be brought about, ballot box is only one of them. If we look at history, we will see that many, if not most, significant changes came not from elections, but by direct action.

to demand a set of laws, which anna feels is the remedy to all corruption related evils of india, and too time box for implementation, to me is
unreasonable and unrealistic. it is undermining all the pillars of our governing bodies, and sets a dangerous precedent ie the rule of the streets.

Alright, we will have our different views, but please tell me, just as an academic exercise, what faults do you find in JLP proposal?

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Sangom Sir in #111 above (within quotes)

I was a 100% supporter of Anna when he went on fast a few months ago demanding a LPBill to be brought before the Parliament. GOI finally acceded to his demand and a committee was also set up. Since the GOI and law ministry found that the said committee's thinking was not implementable, the GOI got another bill drafted and has brought it before the Parliament. Now Anna insists that the govt should take up his JLP bill and get it passed before end August 2011. I consider this as either blatant blackmail of the GOI and that too because the GOI and more especially MMS had been receptive to the earlier demand of Anna and his team.

What was not implementable in Anna's proposal?

Members supporting Anna now may kindly put themselves in the position of the PM and imagine whether they will like to run their government according to the demands of one public personality or another (however great a Mahatma he may be). Secondly, even if you, as the PM, are a staunch supporter of Anna and would be only too willing to get things done as per Anna's wishes (or dictat?), is it possible for you to tame the opposition and bring it to obey your dictat and pass the bill into Law before the set date?

Well. If I were the PM I would not sit on prestige and think that my accepting the demands of a citizen of my country for a certain much needed reform would be equivalent to running the Govt. according to his whims and fancies. If I think the idea that is tossed by the 'mahatma' is good for the country I wont mind putting it to vote in the parliament at the earliest and if I lose the vote because of a non-cooperative opposition I will tell my countrymen that it is the opposition which is responsible for the defeat of the bill. At least that will help people know who stands where.Datelines and deadlines are relevant only if there is a willingness to get the bill passed.

In this connection will anyone be able to say whether Mohandas Gandhi, ever went on a fast unto death demanding an enactment into law by the British Govt within a deadline fixed by him? I do not think so.

What was salt satyagraha about?

 

[ShivKC]

What was not implementable in Anna's proposal?

What was salt satyagraha about?

what is the tool you have to claim, that majority of indian's want anna's proposal? we are in democracy right, and majority's view is what important.

what you and i find right in anna's bill may not be acceptable to aam admi, which we may not know.

so the ideal methodology to solve this confusion is to leave it to the law makers to decide what to pick up from annas proposal. even you are free to add some more clause and submit as 'raju lok pal bill' no body would oppose as long as you give it to the parliament to choose.

lets say, if bjp is saying,that it wants the entire version of anna to be implemented , then it has some meaning, which goes to debate/edite/vote and winner decides.

my conclusion is, once again, let anna or akka propose what ever they want and leave it to the parliament to decide what aam admi wants. but let him not black mail the govt with his suicide.


btw,gandhi' fought against colonialism not against democracy. so gandhi;s mode will not be relevant here.

 

[Yamaka]

False Impressions, Imagery and Propaganda:

1. Team Anna and some media pundits are bent upon creating FALSE impressions that Dr. MMS and Gov't are NOT AGAINST corruption per se. They are very WRONG.... very WRONG.

Fact: Dr. MMS and his Gov't have worked diligently preparing their Lokpal (LP) Bill and have submitted to the Parliament. This has many provisions suggested earlier by Team Anna.

It's with the Standing Committee consisting of multi-party MPs to look into the legality and acceptability of the Bill for all sections of the Society.

Activists like Aruna Roy are giving feed backs to strengthen the LP Bill. That's the PROCESS and PROCEDURE.

2. Whereas Anna is hell bent on thrusting his VERSION of the Bill - the JLP Bill - into the throat of the Gov't. What right he has, unless he is the Dictator in the making?

People talk about Big Changes like that of what Dr, King wanted in the US: Well, most historians know that what Lyndon Johnson accomplished legislatively was the REAL victory to the Civil Right Movement. Dr. King talked about the evils of civil right violations, and the need for a CHANGE in the SOCIETY.

If he were an Indian living today, Dr. King would have said, "Oh my dear fellow Indians, Corruption is in all walks of life - Every Indian now feels that bribing his way up is his birth right... I tell you it's vile and venal: Both Bribe Giving AND Bribe Taking is a Sin, believe me... we need strong legislation to abolish this SIN... Call your Elected Representatives to pass strong laws against corruption ASAP".

Is this what Anna doing now? NO.

3. Passing either LP Bill or JLP Bill alone will NOT change anything... It must be fully implemented by the competent authority.. here is the real rub: Most people have low Integrity and Professionalism... then how do you plan to get the desired RESULTS?

4. What's wrong with Anna's Version of JLP Bill?:

Inclusion of the Sitting PM, the activities of the MPs inside the Parliament and the Upper Judiciary. This will POTENTIALLY destroy the Elected Govt, period... Parliament WILL not vote for its own destruction, case closed.

5. Most of the youngsters who follow Anna do not know the REAL problems in Anna's Version, they are carried away blindly by the emotions: A 74 year old man going on a Hunger Strike to assuage his EGO!

That's a shame!

Stay tuned.

Ps. How bad IS the media and propaganda in India? Ask any Common Man "Why is A.Raja in Tihar?"

They will say, "Oh, Raja STOLE one lakh crore rupees from the Gov't as per CAG... for that he was CONVICTED and jailed"... The fact is he never stole even a paisa from the Govt, and he is NOT convicted by the Court of Law; he is in Tihar because of the incompetence of the India's Supreme Court and the CBI Prosecutors... he is as innocent as anybody in India today.

 

[kunjuppu]

K, please, this may be effective with others, but I am not one to fall for stoop-to-conquer tactic, .


K, if MLK was given this advice and if he had adopted it, Jim Crow will still be law of the land. There are many peaceful ways in which change can be brought about, ballot box is only one of them. If we look at history, we will see that many, if not most, significant changes came not from elections, but by direct action.

Alright, we will have our different views, but please tell me, just as an academic exercise, what faults do you find in JLP proposal?

Cheers!

dear nara,

i do not have much more to say, except that in this situation, i am not so sure that the means justify the end. or the hoped for end,anyway.

comparing anna with MLK, i have difficulties. the latter's cause , is one of universal morality, and a crime against humanity - human slavery and its consequences. the closest in indian terms, is our treatment of the dalits.

anna, i think, is dealing with a social malaise, which is but part of a deeper malaise. i can only site one example: the policeman in toronto, can make upto $100,000 a year with overtime. hence he has no interest in the petty bribes and hassling the common driver or pedestrain, to make his ends meet. i cannot say the same thing of the ஏட்டு.

the last time i was in chennai, one auto rickshaw driver gave me the economics, or lack of, if he charged the government mandated meter rate
versus the price of petrol, his daily rent of the vehicle, plus the cost of home, educate his one son in a good school. this, with his wife as a
corporation school teacher.

i do not know or would even suggest solutions.

i have relatives who are gung ho on anna; they proudly proclaim on face book their success in getting a certificate or two, while refusing to pay
a bribe. but these, to me, are stinking rich folks, who can afford to prosper, and yet not pay bribes. i am not so sure, about the common folks,
whose job offer depends on a passport, and who can ill afford to take the high road.

against, i am at the end of the road here, re thoughts, and wish to post a 'parked' sign.

i thank you.

 

[kunjuppu]

dear nara,

the Maoists and the Jan Lokpal Bill have one thing in common — they both seek the overthrow of the Indian State.

i have always admired arundhathi roy's capacity to express oneself in the english language. actually, i learned from her, the trick of putting words together, to provide cohesiveness, in the newly formed word.. something similar to what the germans do.

here is a relevant quote, from her opinion piece in the hindu of today. it comes close to my answers to your queries.

While his means may be Gandhian, Anna Hazare's demands are certainly not. Contrary to Gandhiji's ideas about the decentralisation of power, the Jan Lokpal Bill is a draconian, anti-corruption law, in which a panel of carefully chosen people will administer a giant bureaucracy, with thousands of employees, with the power to police everybody from the Prime Minister, the judiciary, members of Parliament, and all of the bureaucracy, down to the lowest government official. The Lokpal will have the powers of investigation, surveillance, and prosecution. Except for the fact that it won't have its own prisons, it will function as an independent administration, meant to counter the bloated, unaccountable, corrupt one that we already have. Two oligarchies, instead of just one.

Whether it works or not depends on how we view corruption. Is corruption just a matter of legality, of financial irregularity and bribery, or is it the currency of a social transaction in an egregiously unequal society, in which power continues to be concentrated in the hands of a smaller and smaller minority? Imagine, for example, a city of shopping malls, on whose streets hawking has been banned. A hawker pays the local beat cop and the man from the municipality a small bribe to break the law and sell her wares to those who cannot afford the prices in the malls. Is that such a terrible thing? In future will she have to pay the Lokpal representative too? Does the solution to the problems faced by ordinary people lie in addressing the structural inequality, or in creating yet another power structure that people will have to defer to?

Meanwhile the props and the choreography, the aggressive nationalism and flag waving of Anna's Revolution are all borrowed, from the anti-reservation protests, the world-cup victory parade, and the celebration of the nuclear tests. They signal to us that if we do not support The Fast, we are not ‘true Indians.' The 24-hour channels have decided that there is no other news in the country worth reporting.



i think, the public, if they are impressed by the above, can read the rest of arundhati's views here below.

The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : I'd rather not be Anna

jai hind!!

 

[Nara]

Y, K and others,

I hope you know MLK was severely criticized from both sides of the civil rights movement. Those on the right accused him of going too fast, and the ones to his left called him an Uncle Tom. Yet, MLK today is one of the very few brightest of shining stars in the celestial canopy of U.S. politics.

The point is, (i) no contemporary politician stands a chance in a head-to-head comparison with even a half-way decent leader of a previous era, let alone a much revered leader, and (ii) even the much revered leaders from an earlier era were not treated with any awe, contemporaneously. So, if anyone wants to say MLK was a great leader and AH is not, then, my response is -- duh.

History teaches us that it takes a coalition among various segments of the civil society, and the political leadership to get anything done. New Deal was such a partnership, and so was Great Society. These things did not happen, and wouldn't have happened if the civil society did not take an active role in politics and governing. No meaningful change will come without both people in government (MMS) and out of government (AH) working together.

Trying to isolate and delegitimize AH, who has demonstrated large public backing, is not productive.

2. Whereas Anna is hell bent on thrusting his VERSION of the Bill - the JLP Bill - into the throat of the Gov't. What right he has, unless he is the Dictator in the making?

I have already stated my view on JLP and LP in post #73. Unfortunately the points I raised have not attracted any meaningful response.

Anyway, IMO, what is important is to compare the provisions of the competing bills. Accusing each other as hellbent or unprofessional, or driven by ego is no good. If that is important to anybody, let me say upfront, I don't want to defend AH the person -- if AH is motivated by ego, fine, if he is a publicity hound, fine, if he is naive and being used by politicians with greater Machiavellian designs, fine too -- I have no defense to offer and you may have an ex parte judgment in your favor on all these counts.

Now, with that out of the way, let me present my case.

An ontological classification of corruption is probably too complex to contemplate, even more inscrutable than the "why" question of cosmology. However, to keep it simple, let us classify corruption into two categories, (i) petty and (ii) major.

Petty corruption is ubiquitous and frustrating. But I think if pressed even the most ardent enemy of corruption can make a case in favor of it. In many ways petty corruption keeps the system functioning.

Also, the cost to the treasury from petty-corruption is miniscule in comparison. To the public, ironically, the cost may very well be negative -- get rid of this corruption and we may very well have to pay more and get less reliable service.

So, and I think most will agree, the second kind of corruption is the cancer that needs to be curtailed, if not eliminated.

Then, JLP or LP, it must take on the second category of corruption and fight it and make it retreat, at least a little. If we can't stand for this, or at least offer our symbolic support, we have no moral authority to demand the lowly autorickshaw driver to be honest.

We can't solve the corruption problem by going after EB clerks and railways TTR, we need to reign in the cabinet ministers and MNCs.

With this preamble, let us take a look at the conflicting proposals of JLP and LP. Let each member decide where he/she stands on these provisions.

Cognition of complaints:

• LP can only investigate complaints forwarded by LS and RS -- i.e. mired in politcs of the hour
• JLP can initiate action suo motto

suo mutto or Nancy Mottu, makes no difference to petty corruption. It makes a world of difference for the likes of Ambani, Telenor, Etisalat. With JP, the corrupt politicians and billionaire businessmen can prevent any meaningful investigation from even getting started.

Prosecution

• The mandate of LP is to produce a report and forward it to the two houses.
• JLP will have the power to prosecute.

JLP will be shielded from corrupt politicians and business interests, but LP will suite the politicians and MNCs very well.

Whistle-blowerprotection

• LP does not offer any protection
• JLP does

Scope to include PM etc.

• JPL can investigate PM, Judiciary and MPs with 7 members approving such investigation.
• Outside the scope of LP

This is definitely a controversial point. Since a high bar is established for taking up complaints against high officials, I am happy with it. But I do understand the arguments against this provision. On balance, I wouldn't mind dropping this provision if an otherwise strong JLP is approved.

In conclusion, I would like a discussion of these points. If your argument is only that AH is a publicity hound, he is blackmailing, etc., please save yourself some time, you can have those points without any contest from me.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

..... Imagine, for example, a city of shopping malls, on whose streets hawking has been banned. A hawker pays the local beat cop and the man from the municipality a small bribe to break the law and sell her wares to those who cannot afford the prices in the malls. Is that such a terrible thing? In future will she have to pay the Lokpal representative too?

Politics makes strange bedfellows

K, I agree with Roy, if the reach of JLP is to be intrusive at the bottom as it is at the top, to the extent expedient, then I rather see this bill scrapped. Between going after a few at the top and many at the bottom, there may be perverse incentives for JLP to go after the vegetable vendor.

No, if that is the JLP on offer, then I am against it too. But is this what is being considered? Can anyone more in tune with Indian politics than yours truly, enlighten? When I read the proposals I did not come away with this impression.

The JLP I am thinking of is one that will go after corruption in high places, ones that involve at least Rs. 1 crore, not the vegetable vendors. For example, I would like a JLP that would act swiftly and throw the likes of MK in Tihar, and leave the many vegetable vendors unmolested.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

A very nice article though lacking in explanatory notes (like why swaminathan has reservations against Hazare's version of Lokpal Bill) -- Arrest corruption, not those who protest against it : India : SA Aiyar : TOI Blogs

 

[happyhindu]

For example, I would like a JLP that would act swiftly and throw the likes of MK in Tihar, and leave the many vegetable vendors unmolested.

According to an alleged wikileak MK has 35,000 crores in swiss banks -- Karunanidhi swipes at Jayalalithaa on Lanka issue | Asian Tribune -- imagine the amount of development it can bring to the state...IMO if india can bring back all that money (which politicians have stashed away in swiss banks) we won't even be talking about caste-reservations, because money / properity has a way of ironing out things...

 

[Yamaka]

Y, K and others,

I hope you know MLK was severely criticized from both sides of the civil rights movement. Those on the right accused him of going too fast, and the ones to his left called him an Uncle Tom. Yet, MLK today is one of the very few brightest of shining stars in the celestial canopy of U.S. politics.

The point is, (i) no contemporary politician stands a chance in a head-to-head comparison with even a half-way decent leader of a previous era, let alone a much revered leader, and (ii) even the much revered leaders from an earlier era were not treated with any awe, contemporaneously. So, if anyone wants to say MLK was a great leader and AH is not, then, my response is -- duh.

History teaches us that it takes a coalition among various segments of the civil society, and the political leadership to get anything done. New Deal was such a partnership, and so was Great Society. These things did not happen, and wouldn't have happened if the civil society did not take an active role in politics and governing. No meaningful change will come without both people in government (MMS) and out of government (AH) working together.

Trying to isolate and delegitimize AH, who has demonstrated large public backing, is not productive.


I have already stated my view on JLP and LP in post #73. Unfortunately the points I raised have not attracted any meaningful response.

Anyway, IMO, what is important is to compare the provisions of the competing bills. Accusing each other as hellbent or unprofessional, or driven by ego is no good. If that is important to anybody, let me say upfront, I don't want to defend AH the person -- if AH is motivated by ego, fine, if he is a publicity hound, fine, if he is naive and being used by politicians with greater Machiavellian designs, fine too -- I have no defense to offer and you may have an ex parte judgment in your favor on all these counts.

Now, with that out of the way, let me present my case.

An ontological classification of corruption is probably too complex to contemplate, even more inscrutable than the "why" question of cosmology. However, to keep it simple, let us classify corruption into two categories, (i) petty and (ii) major.

Petty corruption is ubiquitous and frustrating. But I think if pressed even the most ardent enemy of corruption can make a case in favor of it. In many ways petty corruption keeps the system functioning.

Also, the cost to the treasury from petty-corruption is miniscule in comparison. To the public, ironically, the cost may very well be negative -- get rid of this corruption and we may very well have to pay more and get less reliable service.

So, and I think most will agree, the second kind of corruption is the cancer that needs to be curtailed, if not eliminated.

Then, JLP or LP, it must take on the second category of corruption and fight it and make it retreat, at least a little. If we can't stand for this, or at least offer our symbolic support, we have no moral authority to demand the lowly autorickshaw driver to be honest.

We can't solve the corruption problem by going after EB clerks and railways TTR, we need to reign in the cabinet ministers and MNCs.

With this preamble, let us take a look at the conflicting proposals of JLP and LP. Let each member decide where he/she stands on these provisions.

Cognition of complaints:

• LP can only investigate complaints forwarded by LS and RS -- i.e. mired in politcs of the hour
• JLP can initiate action suo motto

suo mutto or Nancy Mottu, makes no difference to petty corruption. It makes a world of difference for the likes of Ambani, Telenor, Etisalat. With JP, the corrupt politicians and billionaire businessmen can prevent any meaningful investigation from even getting started.

Prosecution

• The mandate of LP is to produce a report and forward it to the two houses.
• JLP will have the power to prosecute.

JLP will be shielded from corrupt politicians and business interests, but LP will suite the politicians and MNCs very well.

Whistle-blowerprotection

• LP does not offer any protection
• JLP does

Scope to include PM etc.

• JPL can investigate PM, Judiciary and MPs with 7 members approving such investigation.
• Outside the scope of LP

This is definitely a controversial point. Since a high bar is established for taking up complaints against high officials, I am happy with it. But I do understand the arguments against this provision. On balance, I wouldn't mind dropping this provision if an otherwise strong JLP is approved.

In conclusion, I would like a discussion of these points. If your argument is only that AH is a publicity hound, he is blackmailing, etc., please save yourself some time, you can have those points without any contest from me.

Cheers!

Dear N:

1. I have given before my specific opposition to the tactics of Anna Hazare. I fully agree with his Political Activism, except the Hunger Strike - this brings in an unnecessary emotional angle to the very difficult problem:

Imagine this 74 year old "Gandhian" is dead overnight because of a simple blood clot that can easily form in his abdominal vein as he sits mostly during the Fasting Mode; the younger generation feels awful and they burn down several buses and public/private buildings in their acute anger, and the Police is forced to start firing at the "Mob" and there is 10 deaths and 2000 wounded seriously!

Is this needed now?

2. I want him call off his Hunger Strike immediately, and focus on getting Sponsors for his JLP Bill in the Parliament.. I don't like Varun Gandhi jumping into this wagon. I just don't trust the BJP on this.

The Standing Committee is working on the Gov't's LP Bill; it could take several weeks or months to complete its evaluations and recommendations. If AH's JLP Bill reaches them, they have to work on it also. Everything is time consuming as per the Parliamentary Procedures and Process, which AH must understand and appreciate.

AH must quit saying "Pass the JLP Bill by 30 Aug or Go"... this is a very childish behavior... Why would an Elected Govt Go because this old man says so?

3. All are negotiable except

JLP prosecuting the sitting PM, the MPs inside the Parliament, according to some in the Gov't... but the problem is Anna wants these two to be included at all costs.

Then, I don't think he is REALLY interested in abolishing CORRUPTION per se... he is after toppling Elected Govt of MMS and possibly others! That's not good for the country. Anna's true face is slowing coming out!!

4. I don't agree with you that only the "Major" corruption is bad and not the "the petty".. IMO ALL corruptions are bad for the Society because it brings Economic Inefficiency and Inequities at ALL Levels... I will ask for Abolishing Corruption perhaps from TOP first to BOTTOM later..

5. As Arundati Roy points out how do you expect another huge Superstructure do the job of abolishing the endemic financial corruption when the members of the Society are low in Integrity and Professionalism?

How about Social Corruption, keeping 3/4 of the population under Rs. 150 per day of income? How about the massive corruption going on in private sector?

6. Somehow, I don't like Anna Hazare being compared to Dr. Martin Luther King... Sorry.

Let's hear from others who are in Chennai, New Delhi, Bangalore etc.

Cheers.