Before you proceed, if possible, open a newspaper in your reach and go to the opinion/editorial page. The abode of wise-cracks who feel that sitting in AC offices and hobnobbing with the political and corporate bigwigs lends them credence to write what they feel like, and of course, try and dissect the bare shreds when the bigger picture is more pressing. I am not saying that coveying of opinions is a negative, quite the contrary, the fourth pillar has helped bring issues to the fore which were buried deep down in the society, for the fear of action and the intolerance of reaction made them unappealing to the masses. Yet, it is sad to see 'eminent' columnists coming out in full force denouncing what some naively call India's Tahrir movement. 'India against corruption' managed to extract some reaction from a rubber-stamp government on an issue which erodes public confidence and the country's coffers each passing day- Corruption. The educated class woke up, the youth took to the streets and and made their voices heard, the country suddenly woke up from a nightmare and decided to eradicate the very symptoms of it. What message did the government take from this mini-revolution? That it can no longer rest for the next 3 years and ride out the wave of anti-incumbency. What lesson did the society take? That collective participation is as effective as it was 64 years back. What lesson did the eminent columnists take? These are stupid people, they don't know what they are doing. Our masters are beyond public appraisal and the leash of an anti-corruption watchdog.
In my humble opinion, the principle of 'partners in crime' applies here. Just like the NDA raised a hue-and-cry over its omission from the drafting committee, these eminent personalities have decided to put down an attempt at checking rampant corruption in the public sphere even before it is on its feet. Some of the disclosures in the recent week, be it the CD purported to have the audio clippings of the Bhushans engaged in cutting a deal with Mulayam Singh, or news on how Anna lost a case and was brandished, or how this movement smacks of communalism because he praised Modi for the justifiable cause of good governance in Gujarat, the timing and the intensity is too hard to miss. But nothing is more obnoxious than their assault on Hazare for his statement on the gullibility of the poor when it comes to voting. How could he? How could he put down the electorate and dub them as sheep who vote for short-term promises? Well, if you get off your office chair and step into a small village in West Bengal, which incidentally went to poll today in what is been termed as a make-or-break election for the Communists in India, you will realize how different a person's priorities are when he has to care about finding a square meal every single day. Yes, voters have at times made sensational decisions and proved pundits wrong by voting on mass issues. However, in the mire of corruption, it is hard not to see this apathy for the legislature with a more accommodating view. What perceivable social change has been brought to them in the last 64 years of democracy? Sure, they probably get 2 hours of electricity a day now and if lucky, have access to a primary heathcare center in their village which actually has staff. But the economic spoils of the post-liberalisation era have largely skipped them and went to the upper 15% of the population!
I will not justify my point solely on the difference in priorities of a poor voter. How about the general idea of representation in law-making process? Yes, we elect the members of the parliament and hence should entrust our full faith in them. Therefore, the idea of members of the civil society being directly involved in the drafting of the Lokpal bill, which in any case is going to be debated in the Parliament before the President's seal, is unconstitutional to these learned opponents of the joint-drafting committee. They have questioned the credentials of the members of this committee, and why X has been preferred over Y and those sort of arguments. And in doing this, they have completely missed the larger picture. When a few representatives have to come forward from a country of 1.21 billion people, is it not wise that the person who stood up to mobilize them be trusted with his choice for those who will occupy the chairs in this important event? Anna Hazare needs no stamp of approval from the electorate, his work at Ralegaon Siddhi and his subsequent movement which led to the passage of the Right to Information Act in 2005 speak for themselves. He is even a part of our coursework at IIT Bombay (I hope these eminent columnists don't barge in and haggle the HSS department for this). Out of the other four, one is a Magsaysay Award winner, another has brought the government in Karnataka to its knees over charges of nepotism, and the father-son duo are widely recognized as lawyers who have spoken up for the public's cause, and who can bring to the table a deep knowledge of the law so that this version of the bill is not toothless and would not become another in a line of weak measures. Hence, I simply fail to see what problem do these columnists have with the representatives on the committee. It is wise to suggest improvement, it is foolish to improve cynicism.
It goes without saying that this committee has the eyes of the nation (or at least the educated part) on it, and expectations are high from both Hazare's men and the government (whose own 'official' NGO, the National Advisory Council is learnt to have drafted a similar bill but of course, not a word was written against it), and one can hope for the sake of those lakhs who see a ray of hope in their exercise of opinion which led to this unprecedented event in the first place. If nothing else, we will stand up for a second time if the need arises, but the public is alert. So Mr. columnist, it is time to meet reality.
If you haven't seen this gem of a show, you have missed something!
No comments:
Post a Comment