Reporter's story, Editor's story and Anna Hazare

The Indian news media generate public interest through two distinct kinds of stories — the reporter’s story and the editor’s story. In 2005, when Parliament passed the Right to Information Act, which gave any Indian citizen access to most government documents, it was the result of a long and difficult process of influencing public opinion by reformers and persistent reporters. It was never a sexy story. Beat reporters kept pushing the many aspects of the idea of right to information, and the story slowly made its way from the inside pages to the front pages, from the periphery of television reportage to prime-time discussions. It was the reporter’s story, and at the end of it, all the public was reasonably well informed about the act, why it was important and how they could use it.

The anti-corruption movement, on the other hand, was an editor’s story from the very beginning, from the moment Mr. Hazare arrived in New Delhi in April, sat on a wayside with his supporters and threatened to starve to death if the government did not create the Lokpal.

Television news quickly converted Mr. Hazare into a saint who had arrived from his village to fight the corrupt authorities in New Delhi. On the first day of his fast, there were no more than 300 people around him, but the cameras framed the fast in such a way that it gave the impression that something big was going on.

Among his core supporters there were several impoverished poets whose laments were chiefly against “people who go in cars” and “people for whom there are big shiny roads while the poor have nothing to eat.” In short, their laments were not only against politicians, but also against the newly prosperous middle class.

At the time, the television news media, which are largely headquartered in New Delhi, had very little understanding of Mr. Hazare, who is from the western state of Maharashtra. Until last April, his influence was confined to rural parts of Maharashtra. By the time the anchors asked the important question — “Who exactly is Anna Hazare?” — it was too late. They had already proclaimed him a modern saint, and he had amassed millions of supporters in a matter of days. As it turned out, Mr. Hazare is not a man the urban middle class would normally call a saint.

Manu Joseph in The New York Times. Here

"Just one slap?" :Anna Hazare over slap on Sharad Pawar

Harvinder Singh, a resident of Rohini in the capital, slapped the Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar in full glare of TV cameras on Thursday.

Anna Hazare, self-confessed arch rival of Pawar, was quick to respond to the incident. Initially with swagger Anna said, "Just one slap?"; 

A report in IBN LIVE. Here

Ek hi maara? : Anna  Hazara on slap on Sharad Pawar

After committing a faux-pas in his reaction to the attack on Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, Anna Hazare said tonight that he was ready to apologise if his remark was perceived to be "wrong".

"He got slapped! Only one slap?" Hazare had said to a group of journalists at Ralegan Siddhi when he learnt about the attack on Thursday. But later he condemned the attack.

Explaining what he meant by his remark, Hazare, talking to a Marathi news-channel, was at pains to explain the faux pas saying "I was addressing a daily gathering of people when someone sent me a note informing about the attack. I wanted to know whether it was just a slap or there was some other kind of violence."

The social activist said he did not say or mean anything inappropriate when he said "ek hi mara?". He always believed in non-violent method of agitation, Hazare said.

"However, if it is perceived that I have said something wrong, I am ready to apologise," he said.

A report in DNA. Here.

“He got slapped! Only one slap?”: Anna Hazare

Anna Hazare on Thursday tied himself in knots with his reaction to the attack on Sharad Pawar first appearing to respond with contempt and later condemning it.

“He got slapped! Only one slap?” he said to a group of journalists who broke out in laughter at his reaction.

A report in The Hindu. Here

Why the Sangh loves Anna Hazare?

When Anna’s team stands and shouts “Bharat Mata Ki Jai”, it is not hailing the Indian Republic but a mythic nation that exists only in the mind. It was no coincidence that the very stage on which Anna first fasted at Jantar Mantar had a map of India shaped in the image of Bharat Mata as the backdrop. It is no coincidence that Anna is a teetotaler given to flogging young men who do not obey him. It is no coincidence that Kejriwal has often shared the stage with an anti-reservation organisation called Youth for Equality. It is no coincidence that the electioneering they are doing is not directed against corruption but the Congress (even if the distinction is sometimes hard to make, it exists). It is no coincidence that Constitutional issues are so readily dismissed by Anna and Kejriwal, who has even anointed Anna above Parliament. It is no coincidence that through the Jan Lokpal Bill, they imagine an ombudsman who would be to the republic what Anna is to Ralegan Siddhi, someone who will whip us all into shape.

The support extended by the RSS, the overt expressions of sympathy, the covert mobilisation of numbers, the desire to make common cause with Anna, is not some public play at deception and politics, it is the manifestation of a genuine desire to make common cause with a man who has managed to fulfill their aims. Mobilise the people, corner the Congress, and fight to the death for Kashmir (only rhetorically, of course, for in reality the soldiers who die in the fighting are motivated by a far more prosaic professionalism).

Hartosh Singh Bal in Open. Here

Why there is a chance for Mayawati to become PM?

The Congress party is vulnerable because of its own misdeeds, starting from the nuclear deal that was pushed through Parliament with purchased votes, to the blind eye turned to the loot of the country in the 2G scam. Anna Hazare has demonstrated the widespread public revulsion that exists for the UPA government; character assassination of Team Anna members may remove the personnel, but not the public revulsion. Such is the state of public nausea that voters are willing to tolerate a timid and unimaginative chief minister like Maharashtra’s Prithviraj Chavan so long as he’s clean, as a DNA survey showed this week. The opposition parties must think of maximising the opportunity on the horizon; however, on current evidence it looks a tall order. The BJP has over-estimated its own strength and its ability to deliver an alternative. The fact that some of its worthies still think that the 84-year-old rath yatri LK Advani is a PM candidate, despite the fact that he led a losing campaign in 2009, demonstrates the bankruptcy of their political strategy.

India has had several experiments with non-Congress, non-BJP governments, but they have not lasted the full course. This does not mean a future experiment will also come up short. But the regional parties have to get their act together for 2012’s two milestones: the UP elections and India’s Presidential election. Mayawati looks on course to decide the first; perhaps she should take the lead in strategising an alternative for the next Parliamentary election. (I don’t give importance to the anti-Mayawati reports in our casteist media, and I don’t think the voters will either.) And the others, be it Mamata, Jayalalithaa, Nitish, etc, should follow her lead. Doing so would be far better than to delude oneself into following Modi’s lead, because his is a road that will lead nowhere in a hurry.

Aditya Sinha in DNA. Here

When Kiran and Arvind are corrupt, what to expect from Lokpal?

A retired police officer who, by virtue of being the first woman IPS officer, was unfortunately treated like a celebrity as soon as she joined the service. In her new avatar as social activist, she is associated with a number of NGOs.

As in most cases, the Magsaysay Award conferred on her served as the critical passport to her post-retirement stardom. She began to be invited for talks and seminars on issues concerning corruption and character.

It is another matter that she is known to have made no difference to corruption while she served in the police.

She was convinced that that she deserved no less than business class air travel for her lecture and seminar tours. Her sponsors always gave in.

But she invariably travelled economy class, that too by availing 75 per cent concession entitled to her by virtue of being the recipient of President's Gallantry Medal.

Nevertheless, she submitted the wrong invoice and received money for a business class ticket. The difference in amount in some travels was as much as five times.

Now when the misdoings have been discovered, she is making the preposterous, rather disastrous plea that the superfluous money she made was for the purposes of her NGO. Her patriotic heart had no qualms about bleeding other organizations to benefit her own.

The basic reason for humans with corrupt proclivities is that they are selfish in their make and have little concern for their fellow humans and countrymen.

To serve is not their motive. Such people invoke the interest of some organisation or the country to camouflage their misdeeds. They are no different from politicians who siphon off money in the name of party funds, which in the same vein as the case under question should be considered perfectly legitimate.

Regrettably, this kind of fudging of bills is rampant amongst civil servants. The lady in question seems to have persisted with the tendency after retirement and temptation got the better of her notwithstanding her current national and international prominence as one of the key members of Team Anna.

The lady is none other than Kiran Bedi.

Can she be a role model to the youth in this country?

The moot question is that if Anna Hazare cannot get three or four people of integrity in his core team, what would be the fate of Lok Pal?

The problem is not of institutions, it is about 'we the people of India'. It is easy to rally masses and build mob hysteria by creating class enemies.

There will be no change until there is a sagacious leader who has the moral temerity to appeal and challenge the conscience of the people at large.

This appeal to purge individual and collective propensities to corruption will only smite our conscience if it is truly non-violent, all-encompassing and free of prejudice in its import.

Anna's movement, though non-violent in tangible terms, unfortunately smacks of implied intimidation, retribution and violence.

R S N Singh in SifyNews. Here

Anna Hazare and Hindutva and the lurking danger

Hazare is the leader of 'banal Hindutva'. He has no moral centre and his scruples are his misunderstandings. He typically is the kind of person described so eloquently by Hannah Arendt in her account of Eichmann's trial: the pathetic, selfserving individual, who attains to a position of power and influence by accident.

Fallout

He is not demonic but just spectacularly mediocre. And he attracts a sizable number of those who are either his kind, or, if they are not necessarily mediocre, are just plainly opportunists, who find a state of political and moral anarchy convenient for their own ends. He is attractive because he does not challenge anyone intellectually or morally. All he asks anyone is to bask in his moral superiority. Like Krishna asking Arjuna to suspend everything and come unto him, Hazare too wants us to suspend judgement and follow him.

Will 'banal Hindutva'replace the more formal versions of the Hindu nationalist ideology? The answer is that it is unlikely. What Hazare is knowingly or unknowingly doing is to become the informal recruitment centre for the harder versions of Hindutva. By making 'banal Hindutva'honourable, Hazare has begun the process of making the harder versions of Hindutva more acceptable and legitimate. The collateral damage, as stated earlier, will be Indian democracy. But does he care? 

Jyotirmaya Sharma in India Today. Here

Janlokpal Bill would never be a remedy

“What’s this?” he asked. “These are royal carriages,” royal servants said with uneasy looks in their eyes “…for your conveyance,” they explained. The new caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz sternly said, “My mule is enough for my conveyance.” He ordered the whole royal stable to be sold and its amount to be surrendered to Baitul Maal (public exchequer). When he reached home he was very upset, his maid sensing the unusual tension asked the cause to which he replied, “What would be a better cause of being tensed than the fact that in the east and in the west not a single soul is there, for whose well-being and rights I am not responsible even if they do not demand, even if they do not claim.”

India has a plethora of problems – poverty, inflation, regional disparity, illiteracy, unemployment, discrimination against minorities/lower castes/women, terrorism, etc. Corruption is one of them. And it is for this menace of corruption that an overenthusiastic civil society has proposed a panacea – Janlokpal Bill. There are dramas, dialogues, dharnas, rallies, political fasts, etc. over this Bill. But let us suppose that the Bill is acceded to by the government in its totality or let’s suppose it passes with more rigorous provisions than those proposed by Anna and co. What would it result in? Between roars of laughter and thunderous applause a person asked the elite panel on NDTV India (in a programme Hum Log), “What would happen if this all powerful Lokpal would itself go corrupt? Would you then propose installation of a grand Lokpal? And if the same happened with that grand Lokpal; a grand grand Lokpal?” Thus the question: who-will-guard-the-guardians? – will continue to haunt each and every solution that is legally put to counter evils like corruption. So I propose a bill namely Umar bin Abdul Aziz bill, which is not legal in strictest sense of the term but besides eradicating corruption can solve all the above-mentioned problems the country is facing and that too within record time of a decade; and I can bet for that… Our leaders have just to step in the shoes of Umar bin Abdul Aziz and then… see the miracle.



CONDITIONAL OBEDIENCE

After being nominated caliph, Umar bin Abdul Aziz addressed the people from the pulpit: “O people, I have been nominated your caliph despite my unwillingness and without your consent. So here I am, I relieve you of your pledge (baiyat) that you have taken for my allegiance. Elect whomsoever you find suitable as your caliph.” People shouted in unison, “O Umar, we have full faith in you and we want only you as our caliph.” Umar bin Abdul Aziz continued his address, “O people, obey me till I obey Allah; and if I disobey Allah, you are not duty bound to obey me.”


CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME

The first thing Umar bin Abdul Aziz did as a caliph was to return ancestral fiefs (jagir) of the royal family to their actual owners. When he expressed his intention, his advisers told him, “If you would return these properties then how would you manage your personal and family expenses?” he replied, “I leave that to Allah.” The royal family exerted itself with all its might to dispirit his reforms but he was adamant. Beginning from his person and his family he tore away all the property documents with scissors and allotted them to its rightful owners from whom it had been snatched away in the past. Orders were sent to all the provinces for return of such properties immediately. Claiming the lost property was not as big a task as to claim pension or ration cards today in India; little evidence was enough. In many cases properties were returned to heirs as original owners had died. He was so strict in this regard that he offered his beloved wife a choice between divorce or returning the jewels and precious stones that her father had gifted her. The truthful lady had obviously chosen the latter.


PUBLIC FUNDS ARE PUBLIC’S

Baitul Maal had ceased to be the treasure of the king in the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. Its income and expenditure, both were regulated. All the impermissible sources of income were clogged and all extravagant expenditures were stopped. He abolished all the special stipends to the members of royal family.

To increase the amount of Baitul Maal, Hajjaj used to take poll tax (jizya) even from newly converted Muslims. Umar bin Abdul Aziz strictly put an end to this un-Islamic practice. Governors had to carry out this order, some of them complained of reduction of funds and that they had to take loan to pay regular stipends (it could be compared to balance of payment crisis that India faced in late 80s). Umar bin Abdul Aziz responded, “abolish jizya anyhow, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be to him) was sent as a prophet and not as a tax collector.” He abolished home tax, marriage tax, stamp tax and many other taxes as well.

Once during his reign a dirham, a single dirham went missing from Yemen’s Baitul Maal (think of ‘missing’ millions in India today). Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote to the official in charge that you do not appear to be dishonest (as one dirham is very paltry an amount) but I consider your negligence an offence. So on behalf of Muslims (read public) I ask you to swear in public by Lord Almighty that you are innocent.

Yazid bin Mehlab – Governor of Khurasan was promptly probed and dismissed by Umar bin Abdul Aziz on the charges of corruption.

Abu Bakr bin Hazm – Governor of Madinah submitted an application to the caliph demanding more funds for candlesticks, lamp glasses, paper, pen, ink, etc. for official work. Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote back in reply, “Remember the days when in the darkness of night, without any light, you used to tread all the way from your home to Masjid-e-Nabawi. Now surely you are better off. Make the point of your pen finer, write closely (leave little space between the lines). And be frugal in your public expenses.” (One can only think of the government servants’ extravagant usage of amenities that they are provided with in India; especially wastage of petrol, electricity, phone; even if petty things like ink and paper are not mentioned).

Besides, Umar bin Abdul Aziz made it mandatory to register every handicap of the empire and gave special stipends to each and every one of them. (I am recalling letters of severely handicap people, who being fed up with their penury, wrote to the President of India asking the permission for committing suicide).

Umar bin Abdul Aziz devoted a portion of the public exchequer to pay off the debt of the parsimonious people, who due to some reason could not pay off their loans. (At this moment, can anyone stop thinking of debt-ridden farmers of Vidarbha who are committing suicides for years as they cannot repay their loans and interests?)

In his reign food was provided as a basic right and state managed free stalls of food for poor and beggars. (…and what is the situation of starvation deaths in India? And how many in our country couldn’t afford two square meals a day?)

Umar bin Abdul Aziz ordered for construction of caravanserais and lodges for travellers throughout his reign. In these lodges one day and night stay with food was free for all the travellers. For those who were unwell this term was for two days and two nights. If some traveller had no money or means of transportation to return home, he was despatched home on the state expenses. (And today, if we lose our wallet i.e. if it is pick-pocketed – as often is the case – we couldn’t travel back home without resorting to begging for travel expenses in the first place).


MINORITY RIGHTS

Once for some official work a Muslim caught hold of a horse belonging to a dhimmi without giving him any pay. Umar bin Abdul Aziz ordered forty lashes to him for this oppression.

Once a dhimmi charged Prince Abbas bin Waleed of grabbing his land. Umar bin Abdul Aziz summoned Abbas. Abbas said: “I have been allotted this land by caliph Waleed and I have its papers with me.” Dhimmi said, “But I want justice according to the Book of God.” Umar bin Abdul Aziz pronounced his verdict, “The word of God (Qur’ān) is prior to the certificates of Waleed” and allotted the land to the dhimmi. (And now Muslims can only lament at the plight of their waqf lands in India!)

In Damascus a church was razed at the behest of some influential aristocratic Muslim family, and according to some narrations a mosque was erected in its place. Christians approached the court of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. He investigated their claim and had the settlement (a mosque?) demolished, making way for the church in its rightful place. (Babri Masjid! – no explanations are needed the very name spells tragedy of the minorities in this largest democratic country of the world).


DEALING WITH TERRORISM

Umar bin Abdul Aziz dismissed and banished Hajjaj’s whole family and aides from positions of power and authority as they were indulged in oppression and misdeeds. (Contrary is the case of India where our Narendra Modi is still in the saddle, and many officers who aggravated the riots with their indifference, inaction and sometimes actual rioting have actually got promotions for a job well done).

Due to frequent rebellion and anti-state movements in Umayyad dynasty; arrests, punishments even beheading on suspicion was tolerated. Umar bin Abdul Aziz abolished all this. In Mausil incidents of theft and burglary, due to various reasons, soared. Yahaya Ghassani – Governor of Mausil wrote to the caliph that, “Collecting evidences as per the standards of sharia is a tough task and without punishing people on doubt, crimes could not be curtailed.” Umar bin Abdul Aziz in his reply said, “Punish the offenders only when conclusive evidence is found. If truth cannot reform them, let them not be reformed.” Likewise, governor of Khurasan wrote that people of Khurasan were wild and rebellious in nature; and nothing but scourge and sword could control them. Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote in reply, “Your theory that nothing but scourge and sword could control your people is absolutely nonsensical. Truth and justice can control them; spread truth and justice in your reign (and see for yourself).” (I could not stop thinking of erstwhile TADA, POTA, AFSPA and various other so-called special acts in India that make a mockery of rule of law and human rights).

News reached Umar bin Abdul Aziz that some officials in Persia used to buy fruit from local farmers at a price lower than its market value. And that some tribes levy journey tax on travellers. Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote to the governor of the province, “I am sending an investigating commission to inquire into these matters; it will return the fruit to its owners and will take other necessary steps if complaints are found justifiable. Do not dare interrupting with its proceedings. And if I found that all this happened with your acquiescence or even with your tacit support then I will not spare you for sure.” (One can recollect at the moment the pot-bellied hawaldar that we could find in every street of India relishing tea, cigarette, paan, bidi, etc. – all for free).

Kharjites were staunch opponent of the Umayyad dynasty since the beginning. Despite great amount of blood spilling they still existed; though not powerful but they were still a nuisance. Umar bin Abdul Aziz invited them unconditionally for a dialogue. (Could Indian government even think of this in order to resolve the various regional disputes?) He wrote to them, “Come let’s debate, if we are true, accept our rule and if you are true then we would reconsider our position” (can India dare think of reconsidering its position in matters such disputes?). And finally when dialogues failed he allowed violent action as a last resort on the following conditions: 

1. Women, children, prisoners and the wounded should not be killed. Those who would run off from the battlefield must not be chased down.
2. Booty would be returned to the families of the enemy.
3. Prisoners will be held only till their repentance.

(I wonder what code of conduct our armed forces followed in Forbesganj? And who has given them licence to unleash atrocities of every kind and magnitude in Kashmir and North East?)

CHARACTER OF UMAR BIN ABDUL AZIZ
Umar bin Abdul Aziz once asked his wife, “Do you have a dirham? I feel like eating grapes.” His wife – empty-handed as she was – argued in a fit of anger, “You are caliph and you don’t even afford a dirham for yourself?” The Caliph said with a sigh, “It is easier for me than being handcuffed in the hell-fire.”

Despite strict orders to the contrary, perhaps a new servant heated the water for Umar bin Abdul Aziz’s ablutions, from the public mess (meant for state guests, poor and needy people). When Umar bin Abdul Aziz realised this after a month, he repaid that much amount of wood to the public exchequer.

Once he told his servant to roast meat. The servant roasted that in the public mess and came back. Umar bin Abdul Aziz told him, “Eat it, it was not in my destiny.”

Earlier Umar bin Abdul Aziz didn’t eat at the state mess but he was forced to eat there because of some guests who refused to eat in absence of the caliph. From then onwards he used to eat with guests in the public mess but always paid for every single diet.

In the night till the time he would perform state duties he would use a candle provided to him from Baitul Maal, but if in between he was interrupted with some personal task, he would put off that candle and either light his own or in its absence (as more often was the case) grope in darkness.

Once he was distributing apples when his small child came out and picked up an apple and was about to bite when Umar bin Abdul Aziz saw and snatched it away from him. When an inconsolable child complained to his mother she bought a few apples for him. When Umar bin Abdul Aziz returned home he smelled of apples and fearfully asked, “Any Baitul Maal’s apple had been brought in?” When his wife narrated the story, he said, “By God, I had not snatched that apple from his hand but from my heart itself. But I didn’t like that for an apple I would ruin my honesty before my Lord.”

Once musk from Baitul Maal was brought to him and he tightly closed his mouth and nose in order not to inhale its fragrance.

If a state is ruled with piety, sense of responsibility towards the ruled and sense of accountability towards the Almighty then it would result in an abode of happiness and paradise on earth where everybody is content and satisfied, where there is no oppression, no violation of human rights and no corruption. Umar bin Abdul Aziz in merely two-years--five-months period of his caliphate left an empire in which governors of the provinces had funds of zakat and sadaqa to distribute among the poor and the needy but they were not able to find one; an empire in which the amount of tax collected (despite so many unjust taxes abolished and leniency in collection) increased manifold compared to his predecessors’ reign; an empire where a governor complained to him that people are so happy and content that there is a fear that they would indulge in pride and conceit. Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote to him that, “When Allah would order people of paradise to enter paradise on the Day of Judgment he would order them to say Alhamdulillah (all the praise and thanks belong to the Allah). So you too tell your people to thank Allah for their present happiness.”

As we would have realised by now that we don’t need new incompetent laws, as we are already overflowing with them. We have only made laws since independence and made the existing ones more stringent at times. But to what avail? As new laws are blocking extant areas of corruption, new avenues are found out to defy their meaningfulness by our creative criminals of every stratum in the society. It is high time we realised that LAW ALONE IS NOT THE REMEDY. Laws are useless if we can defy them and get away with it. What is required is strengthening of the police – police within our heart. What is required is the belief in the CCTV cameras – the ones with which angels are recording our deeds no matter how many curtains behind we live. What is required is a faith in the court – court on the day of judgement in which despite all our influences we would be unable to bribe The Judge or to mislead Him. These are the articles of the Umar bin Abdul Aziz Bill that could be summarised in the following three points, 1. Faith in One Omnipotent and Omniscient Allah, 2. Faith in prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be to him), 3. Faith in the Day of Judgement. These beliefs manifest themselves in the character of Umar bin Abdul Aziz – and it is such type of characters that we lack in today, not anything else.

I have faith in humanity’s rational faculties. And so I bet that nobody if presented with an Umar bin Abdul Aziz bill would oppose its passage. The billion dollar question however is that: are we Muslims prepared to propose Umar bin Abdul Aziz bill with our deeds in the street and with our words in the parliament?

Khan Yasir in Radiance Weekly. Here

The Roots of India's Antigraft Churn

The country has changed in the last 20 years. But neither the government nor civil society gets it.

India is undergoing a political upheaval. Anger over high-level corruption has become widespread in the past year, adding to Indians' frustration with everyday petty corruption. In an environment where no political figure seemed credible, activist Anna Hazare stepped in earlier this year and led a campaign for an anticorruption watchdog. Last month, he used a 13-day hunger strike to get his way for legislation to create this watchdog.

That doesn't mean the tumult has ended. The elites in power are misdiagnosing the situation, throwing up tired answers to graft. But the alternative solutions offered by the likes of Mr. Hazare are out of touch too. Neither side seems to understand the kind of change India has experienced in the last two decades.

In the past, India's government ruled in relative secrecy and was ensconced in a rigid hierarchy. Even though New Delhi was accountable at the end of the day to the electorate, it presumed that the millions of files that documented the minutiae of regulations and ministerial actions would remain hidden from public gaze. It also presumed those affiliated with the central government wouldn't challenge it.

Twenty years ago, moreover, India's middle class was firmly allied with the state. These professionals held positions in the higher bureaucracy or in other state institutions.

The first tectonic movement is where the middle class stands today. They have been the biggest and most immediate beneficiaries of liberalization in the last twenty years. They have no reason today to stick up for the state. In fact, Mr. Hazare is joined by middle-class professionals, who have made the anticorruption movement savvy and media-friendly.

The watchdog Mr. Hazare is asking for would have the ability to go after almost any public official for wrongdoings: essentially one single institution, with a vast bureaucracy at its disposal and with overweening powers. This idea presumes that concentration of power is going to be more effective. But divided power is already generating better incentives for different institutions to hold each other in check. What's worse, Mr. Hazare makes no mention of economic or administrative reform, which would reform the role of the state in problematic sectors like telecom and mining.

This suggests that the battle against corruption is far from over. In fact, the great churning in Indian governance, as people search for better representatives to deliver growth without graft, has just begun. The movement Mr. Hazare galvanized may have erred in the direction in which it moved, but the sentiments underlying it are genuine.

The big risk here is that the likes of both Mr. Singh and Mr. Hazare will not understand the roots of this churning. India now has a government without credibility and a civil society offering non-solutions. At this rate, instead of artful reform, India will get draconian legislation.

Bhanu Pratap Mehta in Wall Street Journal. Here

11-Year Hunger strike and Anna Hazare's gimmick

She arrived in an ambulance, thin and ghostly pale, a tube dangling from her nostril. Flanked by police officers, she was ushered into the judge’s chambers for a fortnightly ritual she has repeated hundreds of times. Was she ready to end her fast?

Irom Chanu Sharmila, a 39-year-old poet and activist, gave her usual reply: no. With that, she was taken back to the hospital room where she spends her days in isolation, force-fed a sludgy mix of nutrients though the tube in her nose. This routine has gone on, remarkably, for 11 years.

A recent 12-day fast by the social activist Anna Hazareparalyzed India’s political system, captured the nonstop attention of its hyperkinetic 24-hour cable news media and inspired hundreds of thousands of people across the country to rally in his crusade against corruption. 

In New York Times, Lydia Polgreen meets Irom Chanu Sharmila who has been on a hunger strike for the past 11 years and is force-fed through a tube more

Social Fascism, Anna Hazare and A Raja

Social fascism becomes the reality of a civil society that constructs a moral basis of its own. A middle class like the Indian one, which has erected strong caste enclosures around itself, looks for morality to serve its own interests. Corruption in general becomes a buzzword of condemnation within its day-to-day discourse, despite the fact that it lives with corrupt practices on a daily basis. For example, a middle-class government or NGO functionary does not hesitate to take Rs 1 lakh or more as salary, plus thousands of rupees of honorarium and sitting fees, but that same person would treat a chaprasi, who works for a Rs 5,000 monthly salary, as corrupt if he/she asks for Rs 200 for extra work.

The civil society that led the anti-corruption crusade also does not see corporate houses paying hundreds of crores of bribe money as corruption, but, a minister, an MP or a government official, who takes such bribe money is seen as corrupt because the corporate houses are still in the hands of “their people”, while the political and bureaucratic positions are slipping into the hands of people who are “corrupt by birth”.

Take, for example, A. Raja and Kanimozhi. They are treated as corrupt but the corporate houses that gave kickbacks and took huge contracts at throwaway prices are not treated as corrupt. The same corporate houses and their media boxes have been mobilising civil society of Gandhi topi into maidans to fight corruption.

Kancha Ilaiah in Deccan Chronicle. Here

Anna Hazare, Jan Lokpal and the threat to representative democracy

The principal focus of concerted public action today, is a shifty, ill-defined target. And “corruption” is in the discourse of most of those who have joined the Hazare campaign, a term of wide amplitude, referring to a host of anxieties that have lately manifested themselves in the middle-class consciousness. The economic downturn since late-2008 has not shown up in official economic statistics, but it is a part of peoples’ lives in India. Inflation has become a more perceptible threat than ever before in two decades. The vaulting ambitions of India’s bulging “youth demographic strata” are under stress, making nonsense of the beguiling prospects held out by the media just over two years ago. And as the global economy itself lurches into a possible double-dip recession, the promise of India’s emergence on the world stage as a superpower seems rather dim. 

Political corruption is a convenient target onto which this whole complex of anxieties could be shifted. And the seeming urgency of creating an authority superior to all others, meshes neatly with elite convictions that representative democracy has been a colossal failure. But if failure is encoded into the genesis of the institution that Hazare and his flock have designated as the ultimate solution to the anxieties of Indian democracy, it must be asked what their reaction would be when this reality becomes undeniable. It should be asked if the target could then shift from “corruption” to “politics” itself. If representative democracy could itself fall victim to awakening Indian middle-class rage.

Sukumar Muralidharan in his blog. Here

Anna Hazare wants to subvert democracy

A theory has been put forth, and is being recycled continuously, that it is the political awakening of the new Indian middle class, a middle class often decried for its apathy towards the Indian state and democracy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is not the political engagement of the new middle class with India’s democratic system and processes. It is in fact a rejection of India’s democratic politics of 64 years. The message driven home has been: the elections and elected representatives don’t matter, the middle class votes don’t matter — because in any case, either the poor sell the vote or the rich buy out the politicians. There is no need for middle class to engage with the system. The system should instead be captured or subverted by street protests and public blackmails, with the help of the news television channels which can act as a force multiplier. When you mobilise supporters telling them that their votes don’t matter, and only street protests and blackmail do, these people are not going to stand up in queue to vote in the next elections.

It is for this precise reason that the current agitation is different from the earlier political movements in this country —- one led by Jai Prakash Narayan against the emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1975, and the other launched by Mr. V.P. Singh against corruption in 1987. Both were ‘political’ movements where the leaders were proposing an alternative political formulation in front of the electorate. By seeking votes against the ruling establishment, they were reposing their faith in India’s democratic system. In contrast, Mr. Hazare’s handlers are self-righteous activists with a disdain for politics and politicians. The basic belief arising from the nature of their work with the NGOs is that politics and government cannot deliver, and only they can do a better job. In following their beliefs, the current movement is being assiduously apolitical, where its leadership is subverting — if not overtly rejecting — the democratic institutions like the Parliament and established legislative processes.

With its implicit message of subversion in a democracy, it illustrates the paradox of the current movement. The enthusiasm and commitment of the people in coming to the streets for a non-sectarian cause in a democracy is breathtaking. Yet this is a movement without an agenda beyond pushing its own version of the Jan Lok Bill. It could bend towards a new political party the way V.P. Singh’s Jan Morcha evolved into the Janata Dal, or it could be sophisticatedly co-opted by the UPA government as a new National Advisory Council. The essential truth is that nobody can predict just where this upheaval is heading. The political parties are being wise in moving carefully — and avoiding the facile embrace of a movement whose trajectory is unknown.

We are in the danger of ending up with an even more disillusioned and disenchanted middle class which doesn’t believe in a social contract with the Indian State. While the existing social contract seems to have lapsed, there are no alternatives being articulated by the leaders of the current movement.

A scathing comment on Anna Hazare by Pragmatic Desi. Here

Anna Hazare is wrong. Jan Lokpal Bill is not the solution : Nandan Nilekani

Sagarika Ghose: Hello and welcome to this CNN-IBN special. Can Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement and the Jan Lokpal Bill in its present form end corruption in India?

Joining us is Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of Infosys and chairman of the Unique Identification Authority of India, which aims to provide identity cards to the poorest of the poor to eliminate corruption from the delivery of services to them.
Nandan Nilekani, thanks for joining us. The Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement and the Jan Lokpal Bill is the big news at the moment. Two questions. What do you make of this movement? And do you think that Jan Lokpal Bill is the best way to fight corruption in India?

Nandan Nilekani: No, I think there is no doubt that all of us want to do things to eliminate corruption in our society and I fully sympathise with that motive and the frustration that people feel about corruption. But I think if you really want to do it, it has to be done in a much more holistic and strategic manner. Because there is a part of corruption that is big ticket corruption, there is a part of it that is retail corruption, and what we are finding in the Aadhar project, the UIAI project, is that we have basically given people an identity so that they are not denied something because they don't have an ID. We have to give them services in the villages so they can get their money automatically. We have to make sure that their PDS is portable so that they can go to any ration shop. These are basic, fundamental things which will help in making sure that the people have a much more hassle-free relationship with the State. And so I think if you are going to do something about corruption, we have to do it in a much broader manner, where this Bill just becomes one of many things.

Sagarika Ghose: But you don't think that the Jan Lokpal Bill on its own is a magic wand that can solve corruption problems.

Nandan Nilekani: Absolutely not, I mean, I don't know who is drinking this Koolaid. You know, I find this simplistic notion that you pass some magical Bill and some corruption is going to go away, I find that... frankly... certainly not the way you should be thinking about the issue.

Sagarika Ghose: So do you think that at the moment we have enough laws, the laws that we have, the IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act, we have enough laws those are enough...

Nandan Nilekani: No I'm not saying that we don't need a Lokpal Bill..

Sagarika Ghose: We need to improve the delivery system.

Nandan Nilekani: I'm just saying that a Bill where you create a whole police infrastructure that will eliminate corruption without looking at the whole broad set of issues and fundamentally changing the way we deliver the public services - in a way that is much more convenient and hassle-free for the common man - is I think focusing on a very small part of the overall problem. So I'm very much for removing corruption, but I think the statement that this is the only way to do it to the exclusion of all other things is... I mean, I find that very very impractical.

Sagarika Ghose: So you are basically saying that the way to fight is through service delivery, to streamline service delivery, not bring back what many are calling an ‘inspector raj'.

Nandan Nilekani: Yes, I mean, I am not saying that we don't need a Lokpal Bill. That is for the Parliament to decide - what should be the frame of that bill. I'm just saying that for millions of people corruption is at the point of interaction. When they are trying to get their PDS, when their are trying to get their pension, when they are trying to get their bank account open, when they move from a village to a city and nobody is willing to recognise them. That is where corruption is. And that is where the things we are doing like giving an Aadhar ID for every person, especially those who have no ID, (comes in). Getting them bank accounts by an automatic KYC, getting them a business correspondent network so that they can withdraw money from anywhere. Giving then the portability of the PDS so that if one PDS outlet is not giving them service they can go to somebody else. That's where, you know, millions of interactions the people have with the system, you need to fix that. And that is really a process, transformation, you know, technology kind of a solution, it is not about the law.

Sagarika Ghose: How do we assess this middle-class anger; is it assertive, is it anarchist or is it constructive?

Nandan Nilekani: No I think there is a revolution of rising expectation and a part of that expectation is a much better, much more streamlined, level playing field kind of a society, which I think all of us will agree. I don't think that the aspiration or frustration is something that... you know, I fully empathise and sympathise with that. My point is both the solution and the means being adopted - that is where I think I have a difference (in viewpoint). All the people who are against corruption should have a much broader agenda, which covers at least 10 to 15 things. One of which is whatever Bill they have in mind.

Sagarika Ghose: There is a feeling in this country and a growing feeling in this country that corruption is increasing with liberalisation and economic reforms and one of the champions of the Jan Lokpal Bill Prashant Bhushan has actually said that. What do you make of that argument? Do you believe that liberalisation is creating big ticket corruption and that the avenues for making illegitimate money are increasing because of liberalisation?

Nandan Nilekani: No I think in fact we need more reforms to rectify these issues because there are parts of Indian economy that don't deal with the state much. You know, you have the IT industry, the BPO industry, the FMGC industry, the manufacturing industry, the auto industry, the financial industry which are very competitive open market kind of situations. The challenge happens when there is some huge role of government, whether the government is a regulator or the government is a provider of some resource which is scarce or the government is a buyer or whatever. And that interface is where all these issues are, so we need to make that much more transparent, open and deregulated. I mean we need liberalisation very much because finally we are going to have millions of Indians coming into the workforce. And the jobs for those young Indians are going to be created by entrepreneurs. So we need to create a culture where we encourage ethical entrepreneurship.

Sagarika Ghose: So the battle against corruption should not lead to stopping of reforms, should actually incentivise more reforms?

Nandan Nilekani: Absolutely. You need more reforms, not less.

Sagarika Ghose: So you simply eliminate the government functionary?

Nandan Nilekani: No, you streamline things, you automate things and you create choice. I think choice is very important. See the difference between you and me and somebody in a village is that if you don't like the service in one shop you can go to another shop. So you have a choice, if you get bad service you can go somewhere else. If you don't like this bank you can go to some other bank. You don't like this ATM you go that ATM. So the choice is what empowers you. If you are a person who is a part of the PDS, your name is assigned to only one shop. You can't go anywhere else. So if that particular shop is shut down or is not able to give you service or whatever, you are out of luck. So you have become hostage to that one entity. The moment you make it portable where I can go to either shop A or shop B to get my things suddenly you've empowered me. That you do through a system, you can't do it another way.

Sagarika Ghose: From land acquisition to spectrum to mining, it's always the discretionary power of the government where the corruption comes from. But is it going to be that easy to do away with discretionary powers of the government because the government has to after all make decisions.

Nandan Nilekani: I'm just saying that for the common man the corruption is at the point where they have to open a bank account, get their pension, get their rice and wheat - whether those points of interaction can be streamlined - which I think can absolutely be done. That's how we are going to tackle it for the majority of the people.

Sagarika Ghose: But what you are talking about is the corruption that is affecting the common man on a day to day basis. Now what about big ticket corruption, big scams, the 2G scam, the CWG scam - don't you need a Lokpal there for example to tackle big ticket corruption?

Nandan Nilekani: No, I'm not saying don't have a Lokpal, I'm just saying that Lokpal is just one out of 10 or 15 initiatives that we need to take, so we should see these things in the context of that. That's all I'm saying. Of course we need a Lokpal bill and whatever version, I'm not an authority on that. But please look at it as a strategic, holistic, transformational challenge that cuts across large ticket items, retail items procurement, elections, whatever. And look at this in a strategic manner - don't focus on one out of 15 things. And act as if that is a magical bullet that will solve everything - that is completely inane.

Sagarika Ghose: It's simply not enough. It is inane and not enough.

Nandan Nilekani: I mean I really don't know why this has reached this level. I mean I have been trying to do this system stuff for many years and I am convinced that you have to look at it strategically.

Sagarika Ghose: Do you believe that this protest which is taking place while the Bill is before the Parliamentary process is justified?

Nandan Nilekani: I don't think it is justified. You know we have a Bill for the UID authority, which went to Parliament and was placed before the standing committee on Finance, which is chaired by Mr Yashwant Sinha. And I have had the occasion to, you know, make a presentation on more than one occasion to the standing committee. Now the proceedings of this are confidential, but let me tell you they do an extraordinarily thorough job. I'm very very impressed with the quality of questions, the homework, the due diligence, the seriousness that they view these things with. And it's very bipartisan, you can't make out who is from which party because they all ask (questions) on the issue. So when you have such an excellent system of law-making...and you know they have asked us so many thing to clarify, they have called so many experts, they have called people who are against what we are doing to the committee. So it's a very comprehensive approach to law-making. So when this law is in front of the appropriate standing committee, why do we need an agitation? It escapes me why this is going on.

Sagarika Ghose: So you believe that the agitation is actually a violation of Parliamentary principles.

Nandan Nilekani: No, I'm saying when a very serious Parliamentary body called the standing committee has taken this law for consideration, why are we not working through that system?

Sagarika Ghose: And we should not disrespect the Parliamentary standing committee?

Nandan Nilekani: Absolutely. I mean, look I have visited the UK Parliament, I have gone to the French Parliament, I have been to the US House of Representatives. I have met top leaders across the world in all walks of life and let me tell you the standing committee procedures are second to none. Let us respect that, let us give them the opportunity to call all the experts for and against and let them come out with something. They are the appropriate people, they are our representatives.

Sagarika Ghose: Are you placing too much faith in technology. Because IT systems can clean up the system, you can computerise your birth certificates and death certificates, but at the same time you do also have to monitor credit card payment, you do have to monitor retail purchase. So a certain of degree of monitoring is required even if you provide IT service in transactions.

Nandan Nilekani: The way you do that Sagarika is that you have millions of transactions happening every day. You can't have millions of people roaming around looking at transactions - that is not a scalable model of doing things. The way you do it is that you build analytical tools where you look at a large number of transactions, look for suspicious behaviour and focus on those transactions that look suspicious. There is a science called fraud analytics to do these kinds of things. Why would you use nineteenth century methods to solve problems today?

Sagarika Ghose: Many are calling it a national catharsis on corruption. Why do you think corruption thrives in our country? What is the reason according to you why corruption is endemic in our country?

Nandan Nilekani: No, I think there are different aspects to this corruption. Right, there is the large ticket kind of corruption which happens typically where the state interfaces with business for large resources and land. There the solutions are different, there it is about having a better land market or auctioning of resources or better procurement policies. Then there is the small ticket or retail corruption where millions of people interact with the state, there is a rent-seeking transaction that happens, that is about systems, automation and the stuff I talked about. Then there is the tax issue which is ... again a lot of taxes are about having better systems to reduce things by having matching of invoices or having common entity registrations so that everybody uses the same IDs. Now you obviously need surveillance or inspection, I am not saying you don't need that. But that is a layer you put on top of a well-functioning, streamlined system. Surveillance and an audit cannot be a substitute for that and that is one of the conceptual problems I have with many of these proposals – which is that nobody is talking about how do we fix the underlying thing. But we create one more army of people who are going to inspect something which is already not working - that is not the way to fix things, go and fix it where it should be working. My point is simply that let's not get carried away by the idea that one magic bullet is going to solve it. And let us respect that when there is a Parliament, when there is a standing committee which is looking into this matter, let them do their job.

Sagarika Ghose: Are you pessimistic or are you optimistic? Often from the Anna Hazare camp we hear slogans like sab neta chor hai, the system is entirely corrupt, politicians are all corrupt, we should not have trust in the system. Do you buy into such pessimism or do you feel we're winning the war on corruption?

Nandan Nilekani: I think it is a very unfair statement. You know I have been two years in public life and my respect for politicians has gone up. I think they are extremely hard-working, they're juggling with a dozen balls, they're very understanding of issues, you know, there's enormous diversity they have to deal with. If the argument is that some politicians are corrupt we can say that about every walk of life. There are businessmen who are corrupt, there are media houses which are corrupt, and there are NGO which are known to be corrupt, why are we tarring just one constituency with this brush. I think we should respect our politicians and across the board I have tremendous respect for politicians.

Sagarika Ghose in CNN-IBN Here Watch the video Here

Top Ten Reasons Anna Hazare shouldn't have waged a war on corruption

Top Ten Reasons Anna Hazare shouldn't have waged a war on corruption

10. Corruption is omnipresent in India.

9. Without giving bribe nothing happens in India. You cannot get your birth certificate or death certificate without giving bribe. You cannot get cremated without giving bakshish..

8. Indira Gandhi has famously said once that corruption is international phenonmenon.

7. Corruption is ingrained in the blood of Indian.

6. Indians would prefer to bribe the TT and get themselves a berth or seat rather than altering the travel plan.

5. Corrupt practices are part and parcel of the Indian mythologies. Remember When Karna took his powerful weapon, Nagastra and shot it at Arjuna. Krishna saved Arjuna from certain death by his divine powers; by subtly lowering Arjuna’s chariot into the earth, through a gentle pressure of his feet.

4. Hypocricy is ingrained in the blood of Indian. India is the only country where everything from river to wealth and knowledge are worshipped as female gods. India is also the only country to have massacred crores of girl childs in a decade 

3. Corruption cannot be eradicated by framing stringent laws alone. In India there is a law that those who indulge in spurious drugs should be hanged to death. Not a single soul has been hanged till today. The spurious drug industry is thriving with 5000 crore turnover annually. Besides nobody could deny the threat of it being misused. Janlokpal Bill would become another POTA or TADA

2. Indians would find ways and means to buy Lokpal or Janlokpal whatever.

1. There are more pressing issues facing the nation: Suicides of farmers, scarcity of drinking water, rising unemployment, threat of Hindu Fascism, collapse of family system, onslaught of western culture etc.

 Wake up Anna Hazares! It is better late than never.

We are ready to give bribe. But we want the corrupt to be punished.

The best thing about Indian politicians is that they make you feel you are a better person. Not surprisingly, Indians often derive their moral confidence not through the discomfort of examining their own actions, but from regarding themselves as decent folks looted by corrupt, villainous politicians.

This is at the heart of a self-righteous middle-class uprising against political corruption, a television news drama that reached its inevitable climax in Delhi on Tuesday when the rural social reformer Anna Hazare was about to set out for his death fast — the second one he has attempted this year to press his demand for a powerful anti-corruption agency.

He was arrested by the police, ostensibly in the interest of law and order.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his Independence Day address to the nation on Monday, took digs at Mr. Hazare and his tactic of using hunger strikes to twist the arm of an elected government. Mr. Singh said that he did not have “a magic wand” to end corruption in India.

The anti-corruption movement has the simplicity of a third-rate fable.

There are the good guys (the reformers and the average Indian citizen) and the bad guys (the politicians). But the real story is not a fable but art cinema.

Indians have a deep and complicated relationship with corruption. As in any long marriage, it is not clear whether they are happily or unhappily married. The country’s economic system is fused with many strands of corruption and organized systems of tax evasion. The middle class is very much a part of this.

Most Indians have paid a bribe. Most Indian businesses cannot survive or remain competitive without stashing away undeclared earnings.

Almost everybody who has sold a house has taken one part of the payment in cash and evaded tax on it.

Yet, the branding of corruption is so powerful that Indians moan the moment they hear the word. The comic hypocrisy of it all was best evident in the past few months as the anti-corruption movement gathered unprecedented middle-class support.
... ... .... ..... ...

Behind the power of India’s anti-corruption movement is the rise of a new emotion: Young urban Indians are more interested in their nation than ever before. As a consequence they are more politically aware.

Seven years ago, I went around Mumbai asking fashionably dressed college students questions like, “Who is the deputy prime minister of India?” Often, I was faced with long, embarrassed silences, or “Oh my God, quiz question.”

When I asked a young Muslim woman the question “Who is Narendra Modi?” she said she had not heard the name before. Mr. Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat, was then and still is accused of assisting riots that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Muslims.

Today, there is a perceptible increase in the number of young people who are acutely aware and interested in the fate of the nation. That is because they are different from the generations before them whose only objective in life was to escape India. Now that the world is what it is, there is no place to escape to. So they want their home to be a better place — where bribe-takers are punished and bribe-payers live happily ever after.

Manu Joseph in The New York Times. Here

Anna Hazare is the messenger of Big corporates

சமூகத்தின் நாடித்துடிப்புகளை  கச்சிதமாக அறிந்து, அதற்கேற்ப காய்களை நகர்த்தும் முதலாளித்துவத்தின்  இப்போதைய அழுகுணி ஆட்டத்தில் அவர்தான் மதிப்பிற்குரிய ராஜா.  ஊழலில் ஊறித் திளைத்த அதிகார வர்க்கத்தின் மீது சாதாரண மனிதனுக்கு கோபமும், வெறுப்பும் மண்டிக்கிடந்த வேளையில் அவரது வருகையை முதலாளித்துவ ஊடகங்கள் அறிவித்தன. தங்களது ஆக்டோபஸ் சக்தியால் ஒரே நாளில் அவர்தான் தேசத்தின் தலைவர் என்று அடையாளம் காட்டின. விடாமல் எந்நேரமும் அவரது பெயரை உச்சரித்துக் கொண்டே இருக்கின்றன. இரண்டாம் சுதந்திரப் போரை அவர் துவக்கி விட்டதாக கணிக்கின்றன.

இந்த நாடகத்தின் ஆரம்பத்திலேயே ஒரு ஊழல் இருந்தது. சட்டங்களை வரையறை செய்ய மக்களால் தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட  பிரதிநிதிகள் அடங்கிய பாராளுமன்றம் இருக்கும்போது அதன் எல்லையை மீறினார் அன்னா ஹசாரே. தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட பிரதிநிதிகள் இருக்கும்போது லோக்பால் மசோதாவை வரைவு செய்கிற குழுவில் தங்களையும் சேர்க்க வேண்டும் என்று அன்னா ஹசாரே கோரிக்கை வைத்தார். அப்படியொரு அதிகாரபூர்வமற்ற அதிகாரத்தை அவரே எடுத்துக்கொண்டார்.  உண்ணாவிரதம், சத்தியாக்கிரகம் என்று நேரான வழிகளில் போராடுவதாய் சொல்லிக்கொண்ட அன்னா ஹசாரேவின்  குரல் புறவாசல் வழியாக தான் இப்படி நுழையக் கதவை  திறக்கும்படி அரசிடம் அடாவடியாக எழுப்பியது. பாராளுமன்றம், அதன் உறுப்பினர்கள், அமைச்சர்கள் மீது அவருக்கு நம்பிக்கையில்லையென்றால் முதலில் அவரது போராட்டம் அரசியல் கட்சிகளுக்கு எதிராக இருந்து தேர்தலை சந்தித்து, வென்று, பாராளுமன்றம் சென்று, சட்டத்தை தாங்கள் நினத்தது போல இறுதி செய்து, அமல் படுத்த முனைந்திருக்க வேண்டும். அப்படியெல்லையென்றால், இந்தப் பாராளுமன்ற ஜனநாயகத்திற்கு எதிரானதாக இருந்திருக்க வேண்டும். அதைச் செய்ய மாட்டார். இந்த முதலாளித்துவ ஊடகங்கள் அவரை ஒரே நாளில் குப்பையில் தூக்கி எறிந்துவிடும்.  அரசோ ‘தேசத் துரோகி’ என குற்றஞ்சாட்டி  சிறையில்  அடைத்துவிட்டுத்தான் மறுவேலை பார்க்கும்.

அதுவுமில்லாமல் இதுவுமில்லாமல்  குறுக்கு வழியில், முதலாளித்துவத்தின் தேரோட்டவே அன்னா ஹசாரே விரும்புகிறார். லோக்பால் மசோதாவை இவரெல்லாம் சேர்ந்து வரைவு செய்வார்களாம். அதை பாராளுமன்றம் இறுதிப்படுத்துமாம். விளக்கெண்ணய்த்தனமாக இல்லை இது?  இதற்குத்தான் இத்தனை செய்திகளும், ஆரவாரங்களும் பேரிரைச்சலாய் கேட்டுக்கொண்டு இருக்கிறது.

From Madhavraj's தீராத பக்கங்கள். More Here. 

Anna Hazare a youth icon?

In the last month or so, the 71-year-old Hazare has become a middle-class hero and a "youth icon" in India. This is baffling, given the biographical details in the above paragraph. (I got them from Hartosh Singh Bal's article for Open magazine and Mukul Sharma's piece in Kafila.) Hazare is popularly described as Gandhian, but, as Bal points out, if the forced vasectomies are anything to go by, he brings Sanjay Gandhi to mind more than Mahatma Gandhi. Sure, he is fighting against corruption, but both his method (of blackmail via the hunger fast) and his remedy (creating an alternative center of power and discretion instead of tackling the root causes of corruption) are dubious. Then why has middle-class India turned him into such a hero?

I believe it is because we are lazy. It is true that we are disgusted by corruption. We are sick of reading about the telecom scandal, the Radia tapes, the Commeonwealth games. More than that, corruption has become a virus that plagues our everyday lives, and we're appalled by it. But we're too damn lazy to go out and vote and actually participate in our democracy. We're apathetic, and believe, perhaps correctly, that our feeble middle-class vote won't make a difference. And yet, we want to express our disgust at the way things are, take the moral high ground, and feel like we really are doing something, because hey, that helps our self esteem. Then along comes this venerable activist who wears khadi, lives a spartan life, speaks out against corruption in high places, and goes on a hunger strike to influence the implentation of a bill that aims to tackle corruption. Naturally, we make him the repository of our hopes and our values, speak out in his defence at parties and cafes while hanging out with friends, and even light candles in his support. And there, our job as citizens is done.

The intellectual laziness here is obvious. We make him our hero though we know little else about him, and when his weird history comes to light, we rationalise it away. We ignore the fact that the Lokpal Bill, which he is fighting for, does nothing to tackle the root causes of corruption, and might actually be a step in the wrong direction. We treat attacks on our new hero -- if the behaviour of some of his defenders on TV is anything to go by -- as personal attacks on us. We start dealing in absolutes, as if anyone against Hazare must, by default, be a supporter of corruption and the status quo.

Amit Varma in Yahoo News. More Here

Anna Hazare and hunger for undemocratic change

Annasaheb Hazare is an unlikely middle-class hero in India. He wasn't part of the Indian cricket team that won the World Cup earlier this month. He doesn't own one of the teams of the lucrative Indian Premier League cricket tournament currently underway. He isn't a Bollywood star either. He is a septuagenarian self-described Gandhian known for his development work in the western state of Maharashtra.

And yet he recently dominated the news cycle in India. He went on an indefinite fast to force the Indian government to appoint a committee that would examine and propose changes to draft legislation to establish the office of a national ombudsman to tackle corruption. He succeeded in five days' time: On April 9, the government caved in.

Last Saturday, a committee met to begin drafting a bill. This week, the composition of the committee is becoming controversial. Some have assailed the personal integrity of a few of its members who belong to civil society groups, and even questioned why they belong on this committee.

Judging by the way Mr. Hazare's fast drew support from industrialists, Bollywood stars, social reformers, activists and many students and professionals, this was quite a moment for the Indian middle class. For the first time the current generation of 20- or 30-something working Indians—only dimly aware of Mohandas Gandhi through the symbols and landmarks to his memory across the country—had encountered a real activist who, like Gandhi, was willing to sacrifice his life for a larger national cause.

The cause in question, a war against corruption, has resonated in the past year. Thousands of Indians have marched in demonstrations, enraged at various acts of corruption. Two high-profile cases are key: the way contracts were awarded to stage the Commonwealth Games held last October, and the way licenses were issued for the next generation of cellular telephony in 2008.

While these cases of grand corruption are important, Indians face millions of instances of daily, petty corruption. The municipal officer demands a bribe from a hawker; the bureaucrat refuses to register a land title or a marriage; the traffic cop beats the rickshaw-driver who can't afford to pay his weekly installment, known as hafta. These inconveniences at best and affronts to dignity at worst make corruption a rallying cry.

Such corruption also proves corrosive for business. The World Bank ranks India at 134th out of 183 countries for the ease of doing business and Transparency International puts it at 87th among 178 in its corruption perception index. Economists have noted that the way forward to reduce corruption has to be to decrease the discretionary power in the hands of these bureaucrats and politicians, while streamlining and clarifying the laws that empower them.

The irony here is that Mr. Hazare's struggle might hurt the fight against corruption. He wants an anti-corruption ombudsman with sweeping powers to investigate cases, demand prosecutions, and in some cases, deliver verdicts. That works in Hong Kong, through the Independent Commission Against Corruption, but that's because its economy is not micromanaged, and laws are applied fairly by a very competent civil service. In India, which still hasn't fully recovered from its dirigiste past, a new set of rules begets another one, and bureaucracy easily expands.

This expanding bureaucracy and body of rules is anyway hard for the citizenry to keep accountable; this ombudsman will add to these woes. Many constitutionalists and lawyers have expressed concern that the office of the ombudsman—from what we know now, in the preliminary stages of drafting the legislation—would be able to prosecute any public servant, including perhaps members of the independent judiciary, but would neither be elected popularly nor appointed by a popularly elected official. Rather, one proposal is that he would be anointed by a committee that would include Indian Nobel Prize and Magsasay Award winners, as if those Oslo, Stockholm and Manila anoint are worthier than other Indians. All this bypasses democratic norms of checks and balances.

Such details don't deter Mr. Hazare's supporters, some of whom have said that they want the corrupt to be "executed." This is moral enthusiasm from parts of the middle class, thousands of whom have signed Internet petitions and held candlelight vigils in protest. The highly competitive and breathless electronic media in the country have stoked the fire, likening downtown Delhi to Egypt's Tahrir Square.

For one thing, this comparison insults the brave men and women of Egypt. More importantly, the middle-class revolutionaries miss the fundamental point of the revolutions rocking the Arab world: they are against unrepresentative, unelected dictatorships. With all its flaws, India is a democracy that regularly holds elections. The real danger is that this accountability, however limited it might be, might be replaced by the tyranny of an unelected ombudsman. That's curiously welcome to Mr. Hazare's followers who yearn for a perfect messiah and don't trust the democratic process to deliver such an outcome.

To an extent, such disdain is symptomatic of India's middle class who, judging by the voter turnout in the middle-class strongholds of south Delhi and south Mumbai in the past decade, hardly participate in the electoral process. The apathy is partly due to cynicism, that Parliament is irrelevant to their lives, and the laws the state passes are to be ignored, and partly due to snobbery—of not wanting to wait in a long queue to vote, particularly if the queue includes lower-income people the elite don't like to mix with. But the middle class also perceives that its vote simply doesn't matter in an electoral system where voters continue to vote for party candidates with, say, a criminal record—who end up defeating competent, independent ones with a clean record. The recent corruption woes have only heightened this disgust.

This is not to suggest that demonstrations by the middle class are wrong. Democracies are meaningless without them. But when such protests are led by unelected members of society whose only claim to legitimacy is a claim of moral superiority, and when that is combined with essentially blackmail—accept my demands or I will end my life—it changes the nature of democratic debate.

Salil Tripathi in Wall Street Journal. More Here

Anna Hazare is good. What about Irom Sharmila?

Once upon a time, not long ago, but a few years back, in the year of 2006, Irom Chanu Sharmila, an adherent of Gandhi's non-violenceand from the state of Manipur, hoping to be heard, decided to shift her 6 year-long agitation from the walled room of J N Hospital, Imphal (Manipur) to New Delhi's Jantar Mantar. 

She was on a fast-unto-death since November 2000 for repealing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 (AFSPA), a draconian law which gave extra-judicial powers to Indian Army in the name of ‘countering' insurgency and terrorism. But for Sharmila and her friends, it was not so easy to reach Delhi as the state government was not comfortable with their decision of shifting the venue. Anyhow, she along with her friends escaped and managed to reach Delhi on 2nd October 2006, as her associate and a leading Human rights' activist from Manipur, Babloo Loitongbam tells us, "We never expected we would be able to leave Imphal with Sharmila." The team took an early morning flight and landed in New Delhi. After their arrival, Sharmila immediately headed to Rajghat to pay a floral tribute to her idol, Mahatma Gandhi. Later that evening, she went to Jantar Mantar to continue her protest against AFSPA and Human Rights Violations in Manipur.

A few years down the line, in 2011, Anna Hazare, another passionate follower of Mahatma Gandhi from Maharashtra decided to launch a movement against corruption and raise the demand for Jan Lokpal Bill, a bill lying in the cold storage of the Indian Parliament since 1969 and supposed to be one of the tools for people's empowerment. 

Like Irom Sharmila, her comrade in ideology of Ahimsa, Anna Hazare also chose the same place, Jantar Mantar, to launch his movement. On 5th of April 2011, Anna Hazare arrived in Delhi and headed for Rajghat to pay tribute to his idol, the Mahatma before reaching Jantar Mantar to start his fast-unto- death for the Jan Lokpal Bill. Unlike Sharmila and her friends, he wasn't required to escape or face any hurdles in reaching Delhi. In fact, much before his arrival in Delhi, hundreds of anti-Corruption ‘activists' and organisations were waiting for him. 

On his arrival at Jantar Mantar, within a day, the place was declared as ‘Tahrir Square' of India and his movement against Corruption as something similar to the movement in Egypt! 

Within hours, Anna Hazare turned into the ‘God' and ‘Saviour' of the nation from being the ‘God' and ‘Saviour' of Ralegaon Siddhi, a village of Maharastra where he had worked for years. Interestingly, his campaign against corruption drew support of some of the most famous people who have been alleged in cases concerning to corruption like Lalit Modi and Jaya Lalitha, apart from a number of communal, fascist and racist people and organisations. Of course, a large number of members of the ‘civil society' also joined him. As all of us know, in Swami Agniwesh's words, ‘the movement shook the Government of India'! In a span of only 87 hours, the Government of India issued a notification accepting the demand of Anna and his followers. The media houses screamed, ‘India Wins Again'!

But what about Irom Sharmila,What happened to her movement? Did she and the people of Manipur ‘win like the Indians'? No, it happened like this. On the arrival of Irom Shamila at Jantar Mantar, she was joined by a small number of activists, students and teachers, mostly from Manipur.

Contrary to Anna Hazare's sit in at Jantar Mantar, in less than three days, the Delhi Police swooped down and arrested her in the midnight of 6th October, 2006.

According to reports, more than 100 police personnel arrested her even as Manipuri students and other supporters sang "We shall overcome." The reason of her arrest, as given by a senior police officer at Parliament Street police station was, "Her condition is critical and we have no option but to take her to hospital." After the arrest, she was first shifted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and later AIIMS, where she was kept under heavy security. There, she was not allowed to meet her supporters. Not even media. I distinctly remember, on 26th of November 2006 when I along with my friend Avi Prasad, with whom I studied at Jamia Millia Islamia visited the hospital to meet her and extend our solidarity, we were not allowed citing security reasons. Few months later, Sharmila was sent back to Manipur and she is still on fast. Last year, on 4th November she completed the worlds longest fast and it seems that she would be the first Gandhian, who would complete her fast unto death in the real sense as we hardly see any intention to repeal the draconian law.

It is an established fact that over the years, due to the draconian law, hundreds of ordinary citizens of the so-called disturbed states like Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Kashmir have lost their lives. Extra-judicial killings, illegal detention, rape, torture has become a routine affair for the people-men, women, old and child all alike, of these ‘disturbed areas'. The act has become a symbol of oppression, an object of hate and an instrument of discrimination and high handedness by the one who is supposed to protect their life, liberty and dignity. And without an iota of doubt, the impacts of the draconian laws like AFSPA, UAPA and PSA are much-much far reaching and disastrous than corruption. 

These are tools of the Indian government, through which it is alienating and pushing towards the wall its ‘own-people'. And government after government, no matter which partyis at the helm of affairs, is not worried about these people, norready to scrap these tools of oppressions. Because, it is not in the ‘agenda' of ordinary Indians, because they love the oppressors, murders and rapists of hundreds of citizens of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Kashmir, because, they Love Indian Army more than people (see picture).

So, the Indian governments can't do anything which takes over riding powers from security agencies to be trigger-happy.

Anyone, who opposes and exposes the brutalities of the Indian Army and other security forces, is not going to get the support of Indians, no matter how great a Gandhian he or she is. In India, to garner support, it is not enough to be a mere Gandhian, but a Gandhian with a difference-a Gandhian, who can sit with the murders of Gandhi, praise the person who was responsible for genocide in the land of the Mahatma, back the racist and fascist mentalities and policies.

‘Unfortunately', Irom Sharmila disqualifies to be such a Gandhian and I am sure she must be proud of being ‘unfortunate'!

Mahtab Alam in Situationsasia. More Here