Skip to main content

The Truth behind Anna Hazare Movement

This is not an article about breaking news disclosure about the movement which today stares us squarely in the eyes without a blink, nothing of the kind which Congress spokesmen love to break on the camera about Kishan Baburaon Hazare, before, retreating with the official line "I do not speak for the party" when cornered in the debate. Their love for their own voide and own face keeps pushing them into 24 hours debates, but it is so easy and logical to loose a debate when you do not have truth on your side. Only debates that can be won without having truth on your side are the ones which wives have with their husband, but that is a separate discussion, which I am for obvious reasons bound to loose. But this is facinating, they even today, come on television and talk of procedure. Well, was the minority protection bill proposed by National Advisory Council against the procedure, since NAC was not parliament, and it was also a civil society congregation, albeit sanctioned by the Government. Was the arrest of Anna Hazare as per procedure? if it was, then was the release of Anna Hazare as per procedure? Both entering into an act and then negating it by the end of the day can not be correct. If in the morning, an always intellegent looking P. Chidambram, was correct in claiming that Police acted independently based on its own intelligence; what changed in the evening. Did the Government interfere in Police functioning and asked it to release Anna Hazare? Can it not force the Lokpal act similarly if Lokpal is elected by the Government just as the CVC or CBI chief today? While denying it vehemantly, it has actually demonstrated what it can do with its tools. Then they say, so called Civil Society has no mandate, but then why was Government talking to the same set of people earlier, and who has mandated the Dilip Padgaonkar led committee to decide on the future of J&K? Then they say that the Government is not bound to accept the demands of civil society and the civil society can not threaten the government. But when asked to explain the actions of Manish Teewari and the likes, they go into cocoon saying they do not speak for the Government. I am surprised, if you can not defend what your government is doing, can not stand for or against what your party says, what are you in the debate for, and the statement made by legendary Jack Nicholson in ever so great a voice made in the movie "A Few Good Men" comes to my mind," Now what to you want to discuss, my favorite color of underwear?" as he thundered on the lawyer opposing him.
These people seem to be totally blind. This uprising is not about the bill or corruption, they are just the backdrop, a romantic music that plays softly behind the high action drama in the forefront in a movie. The people coming in to debate miss the whole point. It is like women watching a thought provoking movie and then checking the color and dress of the female protagonist. The argument started probably on those points but with the difficult to hide arrogance of the government, it has taken a different shape.
Two school boys in a school sit next to each other. One of  them nudges the other on the desk and they break into a fight. In the begining, the other guy could have asked and explained as to how they both are justly entitled to equal space on the desk. But one of them, drunk on power, pushes the other one and that is it. The are into a fist fight, and then you can not break it by offering more share of desk or even the change of seat. It is then a fight to win, a fight to prove that I am not an existence which is too easy to ignore.  It is the thundering voice of the middle class telling Ms. Ranuka Chaudhury to listen to the truth in air, which so cold and cutting that it if you hold your palm against them, you will have them bloodied, when just a month back right after PM address to select set of editors, when asked whether or not it is too little too late for PM to set communication with his people as the nation reels under the unapologetic loot under the CWG and 2G spectrum issue, says, PM will not talk based on when you want them to talk, he will decide when he is going to talk, what he is going to talk, how he is going to talk. Ask Madam again, if she intends to reconsider the position. PM will, of course talk whenever people want him to talk, right Madam. The middle class of this country was taken as a homeopathic medicine, which even if it does not bring any benefit, can not cause any harm. Ruling classes were all having set equations with High class elites with promise of high value contracts negotiated by the likes of Ms. Radia and with lowest rung of the society with blatant lies like reservation, and free Televisions and two kilograms of rice. They were so separated from the realities of the nation that they never noticed how the equations changed, how we now have a large population which can be now termed as middle class. Which understands that the liberalization that the current PM is credited for, happened not because he had great vision, but because in 1993 with empty coffers, there was no option, which can see through the claims of Delhi government for making Delhi clean, as it had followed multiple affidavits submitted by Delhi Government to scuttle CNG or whatever, the government takes claim of, it can see through how the government which now claims to be acting on 2G scam, was just some time back claimed the theory of zero loss to exchequer.
This whole struggle is not about one act or bill, this is about making the voice heard for some one who has just got his lost voice. It is a little boy who has pushed the school bully and to his utter surprise has found the big boy loose balance. It is the time to set things in place and show people their real place in democracy. It is not about an act or a bill.
1 comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bahubali 2- The Conclusion- Movie Review

We are living in an extremely cause-heavy world where causes - real and imagined cloud our minds. I saw this in the case of the movie - Beauty and The Beast. There the quarrel of the social commentators was that it explored the gay angle of one of the characters only briefly, only fleetingly. There can be nothing more absurd than that. You are demanding more from an artist than possibly he can offer. Art is a profession of lonely persuasion, and it serves the purpose its creator desires it to serve. Nothing more and nothing less. It is sad and unfortunates that the liberals, which in Indian context largely translates to Leftists, insists that art is nothing but a vehicle that should be provided to them for their political agendas and narratives to ride on. It is like insisting that the reference to the Negroes in the "The Great Gatsby" should have been expanded to cover racism in detail. The brief episode was merely to substantiate the character and nothing more. Just as cre…

Resurrecting Hinduism- Without Embarrassment

I have been pondering about the sense of despondency, the sense of shame which has been imposed on the Hindu thoughts in Indian society. Every act of faith has to be explained, justified. When partition happened, Muslims fought and obtained an independent Nation, while the other large chunk of population, which, in spite of numerical supremacy, was subjugated for centuries, got India. In line with inherent openness and flexibility of Hinduism, India became a secular nation. This is a matter of pride, since it acknowledged the basic secular nature of Sanatan Dharm. However, as things would evolve, vested political interests considered India as unfinished agenda standing in the path of a religious empire being built world-wide. Through a well-calculated intellectual conspiracy of neglect and vilification, it came to a stage that modern Hindus where embarrassed of their religion and apologetic of their faith. This neglect also resulted in the religion being left to the guardianship of un…

Women in Vedas - The Fake Story of Sati Pratha

Biggest problem which Hinduism faces when it is being evaluated through the western prism of Abrahamic faith . I was watching a speech by Sadhguru where he mentioned a very critical defining feature of Hinduism. He says, unlike Western faiths, Hinduism did not place anyone at a pedestal where questions would not reach. Forget the Prophets and Masters, even Gods were received with affection and a list of questions. Nothing was ever beyond debate in Hinduism, not even Gods. This very nature of Hinduism has often been cause of concern and confusion for Western thinkers, troubled by a religion, which is seeped so deep into our culture of exploration of truth through investigation and examination. When the western scholars approach the Vedic Indian wisdom, oftentimes their approach itself is based on the assumption that they are approaching a civilization, a religion which is inferior to theirs. This makes it hard for them to accept a society which was an intellectually flourishing society…