I DONT EXIST ... I LIVE

Imagine a father who has just lent his shoulders to the coffin of his young son! Those very shoulders on which he, in happier times, carried his son to the church and to the park! Those very shoulders on which his son cried, whilst he grew up! All that those old paternal shoulders would have asked for today, would a reassuring touch by his son. But alas! It wasn’t to be. Those drooping shoulders were assigned the agony and pain of carrying a coffin to the graveyard - all because of the pusillanimous debauchery!

His son died a hero’s death – standing up for his manhood, in a vicinity, where most men brazenly stood testimonial to their clandestine cowardice and appalling callousness. Every father would pray he had sons like Reuben or Keenan, and wish that their sons stood up in defiance of acts of perverts, that threatened the dignity of a woman. But no father would ever wish his son would not come back home to recount his act, that befits a gentleman.

We all know what ghastly incident I am talking of, and therefore I shall not allow my words to strike the wrong chord by providing an unwarranted narrative. The deaths Reuben and Keenan have died have been brutal and barbaric, to be say the least - and for us, as inheritors and protectors of a civil society – it would call for ignominious levels of oblivion and insensitivity, if we were to write this off as a mere aberration – which would implicitly defy the rationale of a civil society. Luckily, we do not belong to a populace that is characterized by ruthlessness.

Over the last few days, we have been surrounded by an engorgement of angst, rebellion, fury, pain, grief, sympathy, empathy and disgust. Surely this emotion hasn’t come to us in a day. It has been building up within us today we have founded ourselves a vent. Nonetheless, we would cheat ourselves if we leave it at that.

It is heartening to see the youth of the city respond and more importantly empathize than merely sympathize. It is indeed a real glimmer of hope to see the urge in most of our brethren to act and act decisively. Most cries for justice have echoed the principle of ‘eye for an eye’ (which given the adrenaline rush is justified). Along with this new found conscience and the drive to set a precedent out of this incident, we find ourselves embroiled in an apprehension of the political clout derailing campaigns and movements. We reminiscence our habitual malady, of a short-lived memory! We still stand in defiance and believe we will see light at the end of the tunnel.

Amidst all our anguish and agitation, there lies a glaring reality, which most acknowledge but very few appreciate - and that is the appalling dearth of awareness and the ensuing absence of understanding the implications. Majority of us are enraged at the toothless law in place, but how many of us know why it is toothless? Our society has seen many earnest movements and campaigns; but has unfortunately lived to see most of them fizzle out into oblivion or deviate to such extents, that the original identity of it is lost. Believe me; you wouldn’t even expect a prize to guess the reason for these failures. A shocking paucity of informed opinion! If a person is most susceptible to wandering or deviating from a path, that person is uninformed or worse still – misinformed! And what worries me most is angst without wisdom.

Revolutions happen on streets! It is very easy for us to lament on the state of affairs in the country, but remember – a country is just a reflection of what its people want it to be. Don’t always wait for things to happen in your house before you wake up. When you wake up, it may be at the cost of a loved one sleeping eternally.

Let us not be entangled in trivialities and be distracted by philosophical debates. All we need to do is to keep the pressure on those who are charged to act and compel them (morally) to act in the manner needed. Let us not be naïve and assume ourselves to be protectors of law. You and I cannot pronounce and administer justice. But we can try to ensure, justice is pronounced and administered.

May I request you all to take this pledge :

I swear by my life and love for it, that I shall not let myself live an ignoble life. My scruples will not and cannot tolerate injustice, exploitation and debauchery. I refuse to admit the peccadillo of passivity and indifference. I refuse to let callousness run in my blood. I summon my conscientiousness right now. I plead the human being in my person to awaken!

ANNA AND HAAN-NA

The second freedom struggle! The new age Gandhi! A man on whom, a populace of more than a billion people, exasperated by corruption and nepotism, has pinned its hope for a solution! Swelling crowds at public grounds in the capital, sloganeering outside homes of elected representatives, high-adrenaline speeches and media-frenzy has brought us a brink of a new dawn in our history. As the establishment makes one gaffe more bizarre than the previous, whilst handling the growing angst - a simpleton war veteran, who has dedicated his life in uplifting villages – has attained an iconic status. It would be unfair to discredit his personal contribution in the mass following he commands, but the inexplicable high-handedness of the ruling alliance has provided the much needed catalyst.

Intriguing slogans can be heard at Ramlilla grounds everyday – some a reflection of genuine frustration and most being a thrill of inflicting personal attacks on a Prime Minister, who for reasons best known to him, has yet not taken charge of the worsening situation. Ex-bureaucrats scream their lungs out, trying to emphasize the fact that ‘huge number’ of people have pledged their support to this movement and that the Gandhian crusader enjoys the tacit mandate of more than majority of the people.

All of it, given the current backdrop of a callous administration, looks extremely glamorous, for being anti-establishment has always been accompanied by a charisma that mesmerizes masses. Through history we have seen, people implicitly consent to what happens around them by either looking the other way or simply doing nothing - but when one person starts to scream his lungs out, giving words to the brewing resentment, mobs assemble!

With all due respect to the cause which Team Anna (as they like being called) is championing, there still remain few unaddressed fundamental broad issues, which in the short term public tumult will be ignored, but once the dust settles, will rise like a phoenix! Given the fact that the representative body of the Parliament is behaving in a manner that exudes obnoxious arrogance and disconcerting apathy, mass protests are only legitimate. This brings me to a very interesting point! The term ‘mass protests’ has been used extremely generously by Arvind Kejriwal whenever he has spoken to a public, be it on stage or on a television interview. What is this ‘mass’ of people he is referring to? Even an exaggerated figure would at most add up to a million or half a million more than a whole. Either which way, this ‘mass’ is so ridiculously small a proportion of the country’s population, that Kejriwal has consciously not spoken of it ever! Half of a single percentage point cannot give a sense of ‘substantial numbers’, let alone ‘masses’. Nonetheless, the spectacle that being created by the media would induce a naïve man to believe that more than 600 million people have taken to the roads. That is majority. It is simple Math! Keeping aside naivety, truth is not a matter of numbers. However, the crudeness of arguments put forth by Mr. Kejriwal evokes such rebuttals and none but such!

In the very own words of Anna Hazare – “the main cause of corruption is the concentration of powers in the hands of a few.” Makes sense! Yesteryear has evidenced that oligarchs breed nepotism. My question to Anna Hazare is – “what in your opinion is the Jan Lokpal?” On the face of it, any reasonable man, with a mind of his own, would see it as a monolith structure with monstrous powers. For all I know, the Jan Lokpal will be a machinery installed by a preposterous selection committee (which obviously implies it will not be democratically elected by public mandate), will be bestowed wide encompassing powers, have the unquestioned authority to probe into democratically elected institutions and address grievances (a term that has not been defined and has the potential of inviting anarchy).

There is no disagreement to the fact that there ought to be surveillance on the probity of public offices, for these offices are expected to discharge their attest functions for the greatest good of the people. Probably, one could stretch this view as far as to claim that the degree of prudence expected from a public servant is as much as he would exercise in his own home. Yes, accountability and answerability are critical factors in ensuring good governance. It is a fact that the presence of a watchdog will deter unscrupulous acts and rationalizations. However, under the pretext of a watchdog, we are about to give birth to a bloodhound!

For all the aggrieved protestors and pro-Anna Hazare commentators, it is a matter of thrill to take potshots at the Prime Minister and call for the inclusion of the PMO under the ambit of the Jan Lokpal. What needs to be understood is that the PMO is not a person, but an institution. The sanctity of that office, by implication commands a certain degree of immunity from frivolous scrutiny. The power of the Jan Lokpal to initiate an inquiry into PMO, by a mere majority of the Lokpal bench, without any checks and balances is extremely high-handed and a clear detestation of the democratic institutions.

A lot of pro-Anna Hazare supporters have hailed the concept of the search committee envisaged in the IAC’s draft. I have never come across a more open ended legislative term than this. To quote, “a Search Committee shall consist of 10 members. 5 of its members shall be selected by the Selection Committee from amongst the retired Chief Justices of India, the retired Chief Election Commissioners and the retired Comptroller and Auditor Generals with impeccable reputation of integrity, who have not joined any political party after retirement and who are not holding any office under any government. The 5 members so selected shall, through consensus, co-opt another 5 members from the Civil Society in the search committee.” Two major issues arise from this.

1. 5 members co-opting 5 members is nothing short of being preposterous.

2. The term ‘civil society’ has been left undefined. Where is the line going to be drawn? How does anyone decide whether somebody is civil or uncivil?

To further quote, “the Search Committee before preparing the short list will invite nominations from such eminent individuals or such class of people, whom they deem fit, for the position of Chairperson or the members of the Lokpal”. If one construes this technically, the Lokpal will be an elitist body. What other reasoning does one have for choosing ‘eminence’ as a qualification? The bill further goes on to say, “the Government shall fill up a vacancy of the Chairperson or a member 3 months before the member or the Chairperson is due to retire. If the vacancy arises due to unforeseen reasons, it shall be filled within three months of such vacancy arising.” Is this any short of hypocrisy? On one side, you want to preclude the government from meddling with the selection of people with ‘impeccable integrity’ and on the other you shift the onus to the government for stop gap arrangements? Preposterous!

I would further draw attention to another clause which says, “any bribe giver may be granted immunity from prosecution by the special court if he voluntarily and gives timely information to the Lokpal about the giving of bribe by him with entire evidence for the purpose of getting the concerned bribe taker/public servant caught and convicted, provided he also relinquishes all the illegitimate benefits which he had received by the giving of that bribe.” Isn’t this discriminatory? Bribe givers to be given the immunity for confessing, but the alleged bribe taker shall not be given a chance to present his case before the inquiry commences! It is a well known principle of natural justice that every accused ought to be given a fair chance to be heard! But maybe Team Anna knows more than legal wisdom developed over centuries!

This leads me to question the fairness of Team Anna’s thought process. The Lokpal bill says, “no government official shall be eligible to take up jobs, assignments, consultancies, etc. with any person, company, or organisation that he had dealt with in his official capacity.” Wonder how a constitutional lawyer and a retired SC judge could consent to the inclusion of such an intrusive clause in an anti-corruption law? A reasonable period of prohibition is understandable. A blanket ban is absolutely dictatorial! And now the most preposterous of all clauses! Hold your breath. “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if someone makes any complaint under this Act, which lacks any basis or evidence and is held by Lokpal to be meant only to harass certain authorities, Lokpal may impose such fines on that complainant as it deems fit, but the total fine in any one case shall not exceed Rs one lakh. Provided that no fine can be imposed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the complaintant. Provided further that merely because a case could not be proved under this Act after investigation shall not be held against a complainant for the purposes of this section. Provided that if such complaint is against the staff or officers of Lokpal, Lokpal may sentence the complainant to three months of simple imprisonment in addition to fine.” The price of a frivolous complaint against the PM or a Cabinet Minister is as huge as a hundred thousand rupees? Really? I am unable to find words to rebut such levels of absurdity!

At this point, I need to clarify that I am not endorsing the government’s version of the bill. This is not a matter of either-or! The government’s version is a cruel joke on the citizens of this country. But the point is not of choosing between two mutually exclusive drafts! The point is - the IAC movement has started to arm-twist and blackmail the establishment. No Anna Hazare, with a support of 10 lakh screams has the right to demand of Parliament to pass a, supposedly defining legislation in a matter of 18 days. The time needed by the Parliament its prerogative and such abnegation is intolerable.

In one of its most noble gestures, the Parliament resolved to appeal to Anna Hazare to call of his fast, but the man wouldn’t budge! Calls himself DEMOCRATIC! A man acting like a stubborn child for a raspberry candy and none but that!

And to ass insult to injury, the government just doesn’t seem to relent. To a lot of adolescent understanding, it may appear that the establishment is moving in the right earnest. A bit more of maturity will show you – it is taking the entire movement in a circle and leaving them at the point from where they started!

When a retired army truck driver from a little known village in interior Maharashtra, with a reputation as white as his kurta, a smile as innocent as a child, decided to take the supercilious political establishment by is horns, the youth of this country - a generation of ambitious and aspiring youth, sadly deprived of a leader, a face, a spirit - immediately identified to his cause and perhaps shook the very foundation of a government that has been constantly flirting with narcissism and callousness with ease.

Realms of print media, intellectual discussions and newsrooms marveled at how the youth of this country informed themselves of the toothless Lokpal bill the government drafted and the foolproof version the members of civil society drafted. The crusade, with notable consistency, lamented the lack of political will to bring in a legislation that would install pristine accountability in public offices. The youth of today were reminded a forgotten truth – the Lokpal Bill was the most squalid fallout of a legislature characterized by callousness, absence of a sense of realism and most alarmingly, an air of vanity. What the legislature has not realized, or at least, not accepted, is the fact that, the electorate which bestows on them unparalleled power, is powerful enough to revoke it.

Amidst the euphoria of the anti-graft drive, polar opinions, politicization, uninformed attention seekers, to a great extent, harmed and diluted the cause significantly. It was only unfair to a generation which awoke after years of slumber to have their spirits dampened by virtue of being misled. As intuitive and naïve as we as a populace are, we allowed ourselves to marvel at the proposed legislation, a certain reputed and distinguished group developed, and our marvel was a consequence of its severity. Agreed that severity has an inexplicable aura, but it cannot be the unquestioned grading scale to evaluate something.

Perhaps the biggest mobilization of people in more than two decades had today sadly but more so, predictably ended in a slugfest, where character assassination and mud-slinging have taken priority and the issue forgotten, like it always has been. To the credit of the ‘civil society’ representatives, the exasperation of the people has peaked, which has transcended into an unwavering support for everything they do, every word they speak, every stunt they try. It is rather appalling, but not unjustified, that every overture of the Government is looked down upon as ‘fraudulent’. Whenever a minister, armed with a degree earned abroad and a demeanor that is always calm; makes any statement, pungent rebuttals ensue. For the hordes of cynics, the treatment meted out to the minister is vindicated. But a rather more informed and aware section of people would tell you that what has transpired over the last two months is nothing but a gimmick that has severely undermined the constitution and the democratic process. It is the essence of a democracy that the ethics and principles enshrined in its most sacred document – the Constitution – cannot be circumvented or diluted, however compelling be the circumstance.

By subverting the process of legislation to an extent, we have laid down a precedent that has unparalleled potential to invite anarchy in the future. It all seems very glamorous and path-breaking for now, to have a unique committee set up to draft an anti-graft legislation. However, we fail to realize, that in a democracy, the power is vested in the legislature. The dignity of the high offices of the cabinet, the Prime Minister, the upper judiciary needs to be upheld. Though it may sound unrealistic in a system plagued by an endemic of corruption, undermining sounds principles is unjustified. Such quick-fixes are anything but solution to chronic problems.

It is time for us to overhaul the electorate and empower autonomous organizations like the Election Commission, Central Vigilance Commission, and Central Information Commission among others. It is time that these organizations are hauled out their paper existence, given the competent apparatus, adequately empowered and pragmatically mandated. Adding to a complex web of watchdogs is no solution. It is not to be understood that high public offices should be exonerated without scrutiny, by virtue of being the offices they are. Perhaps, the plausible resolution to the immunity provided by way of impractical procedural requirements is to tear down these fortresses. The maze of permissions and sanctions better is rationalized to yield results.

To all the self proclaimed representatives of ‘civil society’, who seem to be engaged in advancing some personal vendetta, blackmailing the government, constantly trying to project it weak – I have one suggestion! Instead of undermining the democratic institutions, maligning esteemed public offices, threatening fasts every other day, serving foolhardy ultimatums to the Parliament, using sensational language – it would be more productive to strengthen and rationalize the organizations. The end is noble, but the means chosen are ignoble.

The standards have to be the same to judge both sides of the coin. If Team Anna enjoys certain delirium in their scathing tirades against the Government and its ministers, then they reserve no moral right to cry foul when the Congress party decides to up the ante and launch a pungent counter-offensive. Where the gloves have been taken off in the ring, it is no holds barred. It is fashionable to take on the might of any establishment! But then, why give up your manhood and shed tears when there is retribution? Anna Hazare himself termed it as the ‘war’ of Independence. Then so be it. I did not empower Arvind Kejriwal to represent me. He doesn’t! I have never heard of Prashant Bhushsan until his father got himself entangled in some CD controversy and he came out in the media to wash his dirty linen! Then how do they represent me?

It is not the cause I am trying to put down. One cannot be so insolent. It is the gimmick I am writing off!