S.L. Rao in the Telegraph:
Many people have written off the Anna Hazare movement against corruption. They are blind to the effects already visible in orders, policies and procedures. Hazare brought together the widespread disgust against the pervading corruption in our society and the apparent freedom from punishment of those identified as culpable. All political parties and the government combined in a coordinated way to discredit ‘Team Anna’ and to diminish his influence. Public disgust and anger remain and will express itself in votes cast at elections, and also when a new movement is launched by a more sophisticated public leader, who will not express himself in the crude way that Hazare frequently did. Such a movement will make full use of the internet and the social media, having learnt from the viral spread of the song, “Why this Kolaveri di”.
Dramatic changes have already occurred in a number of areas. They will make things more difficult for the corrupt minister and bureaucrat as well as for the incompetent bureaucrat.
Read the full article at the Telegraph: Fruits of Public Anger
Read Full Post
WSJ reports that Aseem Trivedi, a Kanpur-based cartoonist, who ran a website called www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com, is the latest victim of UPA's attempts to muzzle freespeech, particularly any dissent and criticism that seems to support the ob-going anti-corruption movement.
The site was suspended after a complaint to the Mumbai Crime Branch by a Mumbai-based advocate, R.P. Pandey. The complaint stated that “defamatory and derogatory cartoons” were displayed as posters during Mr. Hazare’s hunger strike in Mumbai last week. Noting that the posters were created by Mr. Trivedi and “are believed to be made at the instance of Shri Anna Hazare,” the complaint requested “strict legal action in the matter.” Soon after, Mr. Trivedi’s web portal was banned by “Big Rock,” which hosted his portal. Big Rock didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Mr Trivedi has now put up those cartoons at Google's blogspot.com, knowing Google's anti-censorship stance. The government would clearly find it more difficult to persuade Google to take off these cartoons unlike “Big Rock,” which hosted his now suspended site.
Read more at the WSJ and on the Facebook page of the site.
Read Full Post
Ramachandra Guha in the Telegraph evaluates Manmohan Singh:
There were great expectations of Singh as prime minister; few of which have been fulfilled. Those who thought that the co-author (with P.V. Narasimha Rao) of the first generation of economic reforms would further free entrepreneurs from State control have been disappointed. So have those who hoped the experienced administrator would modernize the civil service by encouraging the lateral entry of professionals, those who believed that the former secretary general of the South Commission would adopt a foreign policy independent of Western (more specifically, American) pressures; and most of all, those who imagined that a person of rectitude and personal honesty would promote probity in politics and administration.
This last failure explains, among other things, the appeal of Anna Hazare, a man whose intellectual vision is as confined as Singh’s is large. In the early part of 2011, as the evidence of cabinet collusion in the Commonwealth Games and 2G scams accumulated, the prime minister continued to shield his corrupt ministers. After Anna Hazare’s fasts, a popular, countrywide movement against corruption began to take shape. Singh still would not act. In the popular imagination, the prime minister was now seen as indecisive and self-serving, his fellow septuagenarian, Anna Hazare, as courageous and self-sacrificing. It is a mark of how disappointing Manmohan Singh’s second term has been that it has allowed an authoritarian village reformer — with little understanding of what Mohandas K. Gandhi said, did, or meant — to claim the mantle of the Mahatma.
Guha goes on to offer four reasons why an honest, intelligent, experienced man, whose appointment as prime minister in 2004 was so widely welcomed has been such a disappointment in office:
- His timidity, bordering at times on obsequiousness, towards the president of the Congress.
- His timidity in not contesting a Lok Sabha seat.
- His lack of judgment when it comes to choosing key advisers.
- His keenness to win good chits from Western leaders.
Do you have other reasons to add to the list?
Read the full article at Telegraph: A Prime Minister in Peril
Read Full Post
The Hindu editorial says the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 presented with much fanfare in Lok Sabha is "hopelessly ineffectual and constitutionally suspect" and "nothing less than a betrayal of national trust":
The key provisions of the new Bill relating to the selection of the nine-member Lokpal, its anti-corruption functions and powers, and administrative control over India's premier criminal investigation agency mock that purpose.
After noting that the opportunity to confer genuine independence on the Central Bureau of Investigation is being lost by keeping it out of the Lokpal's purview, the Hindu editorial points out the problems with the constitutional validity of some basic provisions of the Bill:
The inclusion of minorities among the groups given reservation in the nine-member body is bound to be challenged on the ground that it amounts to a quota being given on grounds of religion. While this issue has little bearing on tackling corruption, the deep and seemingly irreconcilable political divisions it has created, reflected in the manner in which it dominated the parliamentary debate on the Bill, is bound to have a bearing on its passage. Is this a ploy to let anti-corruption legislation fall victim to a wholly extraneous issue – reservation? Will it be allowed to degenerate, as in the case of the women's reservation bill, into a legislative exercise that everyone claims to support but few really want?
Meanwhile, Arvind Kejriwal counters the constant propaganda by Congress that Team Anna's attitude is dictatorial in an interview to NDTV:
The first Bill that we drafted was on 1st December 2010. After that this Bill, through several public consultations, several seminars, several meetings, has gone through 14 versions. And if you see the latest version and compare it to the first one, it has completely undergone change. And we are still seeking suggestions from the people. There were 3000 suggestions that we got from the website itself. We've incorporated many of these suggestions. So it will be completely wrong to say that we are saying "Either this Bill or no other bill". It is completely wrong to say that "my way or the highway". I think it is the Government that is adopting "my way or the highway". It is not we who are adopting "my way or the highway."
Comparing the debates over the Food Security Bill and the Lokpal Bill, Hartosh Singh Bal points out in Open:
Anna and members of his team have been willing to subject themselves to intense media scrutiny. Can we even begin to say the same about the Food Security Bill?
When Sonia Gandhi rides roughshod over serious objections for the sake of a few state elections looming ahead, we see an abdication of governance far more severe than in the Lokpal Bill’s case.
As for the bogey of Team Anna dictating legislation to Parliament, as Prashant Bhushan and others have often pointed out, they are only lobbying for what they believe is right -- Parliament is free to ignore them. And may we add, it is the party whips that would act as the real dictators even when it comes to voting in Parliament: individual MP's will not have the freedom to vote as per their conscience.
While both the BJP and the CPM have already announced that they intend to move a number of amendments to the bill, on the issue of reservations, there seems to be genuine concern that the controversy could derail the whole process. This is what Arvind Kejriwal told NDTV:
NDTV: Let's look at one of the things that people are worried could derail the Bill, the minority quota issue. Now, it's one thing to say that the Lokpal must be representative in nature to reflect India's pluralism, but there are many concerns that this is an aspect. It was introduced, taken out, re-introduced through the corrigendum. That this is something that could legally derail the Bill. Are you concerned?
Arvind Kejriwal: Two things are there. One is, we need a very, very strong and robust selection process. Once you have a robust selection process let there be reservations. We have absolutely no problem. If you have a robust selection process you can get an extremely good Muslim. There are so many Muslims who are very good people. You can get an extremely good Christian. You can get an extremely good person from a minority community. You can get an extremely good person from the Dalit community, if you have a good selection process. So we have absolutely no problems if there were reservation. But what is happening is that politics is being played in the name of reservation. They plan to completely scuttle the whole process in the name of reservation. You have reservation. We have absolutely no problem. But have a robust selection process. And if you had a bad selection process, then reservation or no reservation, you will get bad people.
NDTV: But Pranab Mukherjee says in Parliament that now the Courts will decide whether this is legally tenable or not. A number of other people have suggested that one way of doing it was not to formalize a minority quota, but like, for example, when you form the Cabinet, you say there should be people of all religions, communities and castes.
Arvind Kejriwal: As far as reservation is concerned, this thing is that we completely leave it on the Parliament to decide whether they want to have reservation. We are not against it at all.
NDTV: But are you concerned about the controversy will derail the Bill?
Arvind Kejriwal: That is what, the politics of this would derail the Bill. But secondly, this present bill is so bad, that in this form it should not be passed.
Santosh Desai adds in the TOI:
The difference between reserving jobs in the government or seats in the Parliament with reserving places on the Lokpal is that in the former instance, the attempt is to ensure that the aspirations of all are represented adequately, that the system has ensured that all voices have been heard so that it can take a genuinely informed decision. The final outcome however, is based on secular considerations, on the merits of the situation. At some point, only merit counts; what matters is the argument, not the identity of the person making the argument. At least some of us need to be charged with the responsibility of looking after all of us; for otherwise we could move to a situation where only a Dalit judge could preside over a case involving a Dalit, and so on. We would in the name of promoting inclusiveness, be retreating into the past, freezing existing social configurations in their current form and reducing all of us into who we are. We would be implicitly arguing that individuals can only speak on behalf of others like themselves, and not of larger ideas and ideals.
Read Full Post
Reservations have a delicate task to perform- they need to make up for the inequalities of the past by recognising their source and reversing the imbalance while at the same time working to free us from the labels that imprison us. This balance extends to the system of governance where issues pertaining to identity need both to be acknowledged and risen above. A system which considers itself incapable of rising above narrow identity concerns at any level, will end up perpetuating the very evil it ostensibly fights against. By reserving seats on the Lokpal, a line just might have been crossed. We may just have accepted that our future cannot rise above our past.
To see and scroll through thumb-nails of other videos in the playlist, just click on the rectangular box beofore the + sign in the clip above
This was a year of protests and protesting the protests via shoes, slaps, slogans, kicks, raids, rallies, dirty tricks, vitriol, venom...
Read Full Post