Which is where my personal bone of contention lies: Are we focusing on the right issues?
There has been an inevitable--and deliberate--attempt to polarize thought on these issues: by both ends of the spectrum. As a result, a lot of illusions have been created with time-honored "smoke and mirrors" tactics.
This post is my attempt to find some semblance of common sense among all the strong opinions, fears, hysteria, hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
Fair Warning: This post is limited. It is probably flawed. If you talk *with* me, I can expand it.
===============================================
The IAC is forcing their Bill into Law. And that is wrong!
My understanding is that the IAC is demanding/forcing that "the strong JLP version be tabled for public parliamentary debate".
Which is a far cry from subverting the parliamentary process.
It is asking that JLP be openly debated by our representatives. Whether they will *ever* pass a Law that affects them all is a different matter....
This entire IAC movement is borderline dissent! It's a threat to our democracy.
Healthy, peaceful dissent is essential to any democracy.
Look at one of the birthplaces of modern democracy: France. There, it is routine for citizens to protest in overwhelming numbers as a direct means of communication with their representatives. And it seems to work just fine.
Peaceful dissent can never harm any democracy, but only a dictatorship. Or a monopolistic political class.
Why doesn't Anna care about XYZ issue?
Well, let's start with me.
I'm a freelance writer. I pitch for writing projects because I have a few years experience doing just that.
During interviews, I expect questions on and about my writing experience & skills.
Can you imagine a situation in which I am asked questions about HR policies? Or CRM? Or housecleaning?!
Ridiculous, of course. Yet that's exactly what I should expect from Anna Hazare?
JLP won't make corruption disappear! Only social change can do that. And Reforms 2.0.
I completely agree: there is no way an ombudsman such as JLP can make corruption magically vanish. To suggest that is an exaggeration.
But here's some of what it *can* do, in my own opinion:
- Make it much, much more difficult to conduct brazen multi-crore scams
- Put a dent in the "saab khaate hain, main kyo nahin" mentality
- Put a dent in the social acceptance of bribery as a "way of life"
- Force political parties to focus on good candidates, rather than "easy win" candidates
- Marginally improve public spending initiatives (reduce fund "leaks")
- Provide some safeguard on sale of our public resources: land, minerals, fuels
No magical transformation, but there *will* be cracks in the dam.
Reforms 2.0: First of all, JLP is not some replacement for Reforms 2.0. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with *any* policy-making by Parliament. In any sense.
However, I do think Reforms 2.0 can be really effective only in an atmosphere where corruption is no longer the norm, but a potentially humiliating risk.
But these Anna followers are just naive, barely literate people. They don't even *understand* the issues in the way that *I* do!
Yes they are. And no they don't.
But they are your fellow citizens, equal in celebration and calamity. And they are out there because of sincerity, not any personal gain. Respect that.
And realize that you also don't understand the issues like *they* do.
========================
Note: I have left a *lot* out. If you feel it's important, let me know and I'll try to include it.
You know my views of these issues. Yet, let me address each of the issues you raised in this Blog:
ReplyDelete1. If you listen to IAC top brass, they are not contended by mere passing of a strong Act, but they want their Draft to be placed, discussed and passed within a given time. They not only want their draft to placed but also want Govt to withdraw its own draft!
2. Agree with the importance of dissent. But let us not reduce the dissent to one man's halo or monopoly. Dissent must follow dialogue.
3. On Anna not caring about xyz issues, well I agree with you logic. But then, would you restrict your selling to content writing or insist that your clients adopt the HR policies or CRM or housecleaning that you insist? (That apart, I agree this is a non-issue. Anna need not know everything)
4. JLP won’t make corruption disappear: We are in agreement here. Only I wish to add about the potential that a ill-prepared Lokpal can add some more cracks in the dam, because of their power to supervise over others!
5. Anna followers being naive: Agree again. If not for anything else, no one should underestimate their opponents. That is the first lesson in a contest. That apart, you know my views matches with Dr Ambedkar on political Bhakti and its dangers.
Finally, I am glad you made the effort to write this. But greed has no limits and I demand more...
Thanks, Jay; as I've said, we do see similar facts, have different interpretations, yet don't believe in any *one truth*.
ReplyDeleteWhich is how democracy *should* be.
Couple of additional notes on certain points:
1) I think events have long since moved past those initial statements: as of today the demand is for tabling & public debate in Parliament. So we can see what our representatives *actually* say/think/vote on the core issues. Democratically.
2) Do we still think this is one man's personal obsession? Not decades of simmering helplessness for the majority?
3) Is the IAC/ Anna suggesting other policies should be changed under purview of the JLP? I have not read/ seen/ heard anything of that nature. Scope pretty limited to only "writing"... :-)
4) In that metaphor, I *want* more cracks in the dam. Again, I don't believe there's any "supervisory role" in JLP. It comes into the picture only after a case is reported to them. Then you know the legal process better than me!
5) Agreed on the "bhakti" part completely; but I'm trying to focus only on the JLP. Also, are the vast majority there out of their own idealism, or *only* as XYZ's followers? Key question for us to ponder...
My response:
ReplyDelete1. The posturing still continues. The spirit of give and take still missing. Majesty of State (not Ministers) should not be reduced.
2. Do you really think majority simmers with helplessness on corruption issue? I don't think so. Vast majority seems to have accepted corruption as a way of life.
3. If we go by Anna's own words, it is one at a time. Today Jan Lokpal, tomorrow other issues... We would have set a precedent..rt?
4. I meant oversight. They even have suo moto powers if I remember correct. Yes, this is yet another reason I am convinced about the lack of utility- they will send the cases to the same courts, with all the attendant delays!
5. Mob psychology is complex. We can't straight jacket it either way. I know the outcomes are usually not very positive.
We already scored one death- as of now!!
True, the posturing still continues. Which is why I ask for focus on the actual issues. Perhaps we are naturally inclined to cuddle up to our own opinions and fears. But this can obscure the real facts, especially when others take our opinions as near-reality. "Chinese Whispers" never ends well!
ReplyDelete