TMC Responsible for Lokpal's Rajya Sabha Failure?

When the TMC allied with the UPA little did they know that they will be welcoming a party whose political style at the centre would be not very different from the Left. The TMC’s time in the UPA started with the party behaving with utmost humility and corporation, but with numbers against them they were clearly in no bargaining position. The test of a true ally is not measured by the times he has stood by your side in battle, but by the times when he stands by your side unconditionally when he has the option of doing so conditionally.

The irretrievable breakdown of the UPA’s marriage to the Left was speculated upon be all because two parties with conflicting ideologies are never best allies in a multi-party democracy where there is a coalition government. However, the TMC’s stubbornness was missed by all, as they seemed to be hand and glove with the Congress on most policies excluding the FDI. Even when it came to the FDI dispute, the TMC had sent its immediate disapproval to the Prime Minister, thereby making the government temporarily suspend the policy. However, during the Lokpal dispute the TMC’s behaviour is rather queer.

When the sense of the house resolution was recorded they kept quiet and brought their disapproval of Part III of the bill to the notice of the congress rather late. The question that faces us today is why did Mamata not object to the Lokayukkta model earlier? Mukul Roy, a TMC leader “clarified” that they are in favour of Lokayuktas, but it should be done by the state and not the centre. This demand seems to be rather frivolous as the implementation of the Lokayukktas would eventually lie with the state and it does not really matter whether the state legislates on the matter or the centre does so. The inclusion of a clause that state governments may frame rules for the functioning and administration of the Lokayukktas would have served the purpose of satisfying the functioning of them amidst the diversity of legal machineries present in various states.

The reason behind such a demand could be a fear that the Congress would claim credit for the Lokpal effectiveness in state Lokayukktas if they function properly and conveniently shift the responsibility on the State Governments if they fail to implement the law effectively. The Congress is following such a policy while campaigning in UP and blaming the Mayawati government for the poor implementation of the Centre’s schemes while claiming credit for the passage of such law by the Congress at the centre.

Whatever the TMC’s apprehensions maybe, they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and opportunistic for two reasons. Firstly, they convey their dissent at the eleventh hour. Secondly, they demand the deletion of Part 3 of the bill entirely despite there being sufficient scope for each State running Lokayukktas their own way, within the existing framework of the Bill, which could be an indicator of an over-reaction. Funnily enough, the SHRCs(State Human Rights Commissions) of each state are run effectively despite existing by virtue of a central legislature.

Read More

Why India needs Hazare

Despite the searing criticism against the 74 year old, it would be a mistake to belittle the change he has brought. If one were to analyse the elections which saw Barak Obama become president, it could be noted that Americans were frustrated with their international image, the state of their economic affairs and wanted change no matter what. Barak Obama seized the moment as Americans voted for change over stagnation rather than what is good over what is bad. Perhaps this analogy would help explain the Hazare phenomenon. The people of India were so frustrated by successive governments policies regarding corruption that they wanted change to prevail over stagnation with absolute disregard with respect to the consequences of the change.

It would be sheer stupidity to assert that what Anna did wasn’t blackmail. The Indian government perhaps deserved the blackmail for its inaction on corruption. The aam admi is the most exploited individual with respect to corruption. He has been made to pay extra for his ration card, passport, Voter ID and even his death certificate. Never before have we seen politicians threatened to the extent Lalu Yadav compared Anna’s demands to a noose around the necks to the elected representatives. Answering the question of the movement being fascist and undemocratic by saying that Indian democracy provides for the freedom of speech and expression is sheer stupidity. You cannot isolate your democratic fundamental rights from the legislature and claim them while you threaten the existence of the law-making body providing you with those very rights. Anna’s movement is against our current democratic structure and calls for a complete overhaul as his movement does not and will not stop at the passage of the Lokpal, it would extend to the right to recall and several other demands, if fulfilled would change the type of democracy practiced in India wherein the status of civil societies would surpass that of political parties.

The status quo in Indian democracy is the presumption that civil societies and political parties cannot co-exist. It would be far-fetched to say that the implementation of Anna’s vision would be a positive change or a negative change, but it will definitely be a change, a change politicians do not wish to see. It is this fear due to which politicians are cautious in their approach to Anna. On one hand they recognize that he echoes the sentiments of the people with his cause, on the other hand they realize that his movement would elevate civil societies above political parties and the people may lose faith in the elections.

Politicians deserve being a situation where corruption is threatening them. Blackmail is a form of corruption; hence it could be argued that Anna Hazare uses corruption to fight corruption. When the aam admi looks at the confused faces of politicians while dealing with this blackmail, he feels vindicated for the number of times he was blackmailed to pay bribes for any service rendered by a public servant. Perhaps, the best way to fight evil is the employment of another kind of evil. Perhaps, that is why Anna Hazare has become India’s very own dark knight.

Read More

The Great Hypocrisy

Our country has always boasted of her rich heritage and culture. Culture specifically includes our ‘values’ and ‘customs’. Post-modern Indian youth generally and Gen-Y in particular have always championed the assumption that India as a country has survived various social and cultural catastrophies because we proudly follow our value-system. 

The question is how far we practice what we preach or boast. We need to understand that the so called values of our society are basically set of fashions of society that existed in a bygone time-frame. Although you can follow some of them but others just don’t fit in the present society. Some of our values and customs at times become so suffocating that it becomes tough to survive. We can discuss few illustrations.

Our values talk about ‘Decency’. Now comically in our society a couple sitting affectionately in a lonely park can be indecent for so called champions of morality but a man pissing on a wall in broad day light is perfectly right. Hindu right wing organizations are much against the celebration of ‘Valentines Day’ but for them if people misbehave with girls on the occasion of ‘Holi’, then it is ‘bura naa mano Holi hai’. Decency herein is just conveniently interpreted. Not only Hindus, it seems that certain extreemist Muslims of India find it more appropriate to copy their Talibani counterparts instead of their progressive Turkish or Iranian brothers.

Again in our society ‘Disrespect’ has various interpretations. Marrying a girl or opting for a profession against ones' parents wish means disrespecting them. On the other hand watching them lash out at our old grandparents is perfectly normal, a part of ‘beta woh ab irritating ho gayein hain isliye humain unse space chahiye’ ideology. We Indians are also God-fearing people. We love to spend money in the name of god but then we also know how to earn more by immoral means. Accumulation of Black money or earning through unfair means is part of our ‘sab chalta hai yaar’ attitude, in our country.

Even our generation is full of pseudo western thought preachers who wear Gucci's and Armanis, carrying cock-tails and Blackberry’s, but when it comes to social opinions they view that a prostitute has virtually got no right against rape while homosexuals are deviants who corrupt society. They are the ones who shout dialogues of ‘Rang de basanti’ and sing ‘Sadda Haq’ but have not time to even go and cast vote. On a larger canvas we still live in a society where we proudly boast of ‘Manusmriti and Neeti ke Dohe’ but shy away from acknowledging ‘Vatsayaan or Khajurao architecture’ as part of India culture. We proudly say that we are modern and believe in unity of the country but still we are plagued with evils like ‘Honor Killing’.

Political parties are more interested in organising ‘Rath yatras’ and erecting marble statues while failing to save both ‘tiger’ and ‘girl child’. The judiciary is not immune from this hypocrisy. Rule of Law suddenly becomes very important for Mr. Kasab but definitely not a treat for commoners, of fame such as Rudul Shah case, who languish in jails as under-trials. Dr. Binayak Sen is declared a terrorist while it took active media participation for convicting Manu Sharma, as the state failed to prosecute him. 

The issue is not what you are preaching but it involves ‘how far you practice what you preach?’

-Vaibhav Dixit

Read More

Bhushan & Roy: Conflicting Concurrences

Prashant Bhushan and Arunshati Roy may not see eye to eye on several issues including the Lokpal, however what political cause unites them is surprisingly the Kashmir issue. On one hand we have an eminent lawyer who whole-heartedly supports team Anna's demands, on the other hand we have the famous writer branding Anna's model as a dangerous piece of legislation. On one hand we have Bhushan who is all praise for the peoples movement, on the other hand we have Roy who believes that it was not the same as a peoples movement and actually was a reality show orchestrated by an extensive media campaign after Bedi, Kejriwal and Sissodia picked up Anna and propped him as the saint of the masses. On one hand we have Bhushan who believes that the Anna campaign struck a chord with the aam admi, on the other hand Roy rubbishes it as a TRP-driven campaign and even suggests that if all team Anna wants is a good TRP they should settle for pornography or something which attracts more TRPs.

Given their diverse and certainly diametrically opposite views, it may seem unlikely that they would see eye to eye on anything at all. However, it would be foolish to assume that two people who oppose one another on one issue would not be seen on the same page for any other matter of opinion at all. After, all during the controversial Nuclear Bill passage, even the BJP and the Left were seen sitting on the same side of the fence despite their opposing interpretations on the secularity of the BJP and RSS and the meaning of Hindutva. However, what did unite them was an unsettled issue of national importance where people were sceptical. Interestingly, Bhushan and Roy are one on a rather settled issue of national importance. It would be safe to assume there are very few Indians who recognize the importance of the right to self-determination of the Kashmiris.

The Right to self-determination is an internationally recognized human right, however it has failed to impress the Indian masses as it has never been an election issue despite successive governments openly and brutally rejecting the idea of accommodating such a right. Bhushan and Roy believe that it is the right of the people to choose who they want to be and how they want to be who they want to be.

What is even more intriguing is that their agreeing views on right to self-determination actually form the base of their disagreeing views on Lokpal. Anna's agenda echoed by Bhushan does not stop at the passage of the Jan Lokpal Bill as per his terms, it extends to the recognizing the right to recall and change the type of democracy practiced in India. The right to recall is a necessary component of the right to self-determination. On the other hand Roy's rejection on the Anna movement could be viewed as an opinion built upon her perception regarding self-determination as something which is people-driven. An anti-corruption movement serves the purpose of reforming faults within the existing system and not overthrowing it and replacing it with a new system wherein so called "civil societies" are more powerful than political parties.

Read More

Hazare: No Longer a Hazard

A few months ago Team Anna achieved the pinnacle of their popularity with people shouting slogans "Bharat Mata ki Jai" and drawing comparisons between Hazare and Gandhi. A democratically elected government worked overnight to engage and accommodate certain views of civil society into the Lokpal Bill. However, if one is to trace the origin of these civil society demands, it may seem as if they change every month. Initially they wanted just the passage of the Lokpal Bill, which was one of the anti-graft measures whose passage was pending for 40 years. This demand was seen as long overdue and hence it was reasonable to the aam admi. After the government committed itself to bring a Lokpal Bill, they then wanted the inclusion of the Prime Minister's Office in the areas over which the Lokpal will enjoy jurisdiction. How does the inclusion of the Prime Minister under the Lokpal directly affect the aam admi, no one knows. Then they demand that the CBI be brought under the Lokpal, and all administrative functions of the agency be supervised by the Lokpal. It may be noted that it is not the CBI, but the local police with whom the aam admi deals with on a daily basis.

As the campaign progressed, they reached a pinnacle where Anna seemed to be an irresistible force crusading against an immovable object, but towards the end he seems to be the immovable object crusading against basic ethos of a democracy. Yes, it is well settled that in a democracy everyone has a right to protest and form pressure groups. However, what use is the formation of a pressure group to democracy at the stage when the bill was not even tabled?

It would be incorrect to blame the people of Mumbai and tag them as "indifferent" to corruption. Had the fast been staged in Delhi, it would be highly likely that it would receive the same cold shoulder. Anna's arrogant and obstinate attitude towards the government and the political class led to his downfall. The more media attention Kiran Bedi, Kejriwal and Hazare received, the more cocky they became.

Perhaps what separates Hazare and Gandhi is that Hazare has not yet acknowledged Gandhi's beliefs on the beauty of compromise which is well documented in My Experiments with Truth. The slogan "there is no compromise when it comes to fighting corruption" is indeed catchy to the ears, however it is based on the false premise that corruption can be fought. Corruption can't be fought because it can't be defined, however what can be done is to make people more accountable for their actions and their consequences.

Read More