Corruption in the Congress Party

"Congressmen are not sufficiently interested in constructive work; we must recognize the fact that social order of our dreams cannot come through the congress party of today.....There is so much corruption today, that it frightens me.  Everybody wants to carry so many votes in his pocket because votes give power"

This is not a current statement by an Opposition leader or Anna Hazare. It was by Mahatma Gandhi, sometime in Nov 1947 (Source: The Life of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer)

His limited experience told him that legislators and judges were too close to  the Govt machinery of power to check and balance the executive ; only those outside the Govt, he contended , could check and balance those in Govt.

How can it be done ? He goes on in his address to a conference of Constructive Workers (the name for Civil Society in those days)" Under adult suffrage, if we are worth our salt, we should have such a hold on people that whomsoever we choose would be returned...."

He visualized a regular dialogue between people in power and the "Group of Constructive Workers". He had even scheduled a meeting to take place in March 1948 at Sevagram. The meeting actually took place  , with President Rajendra Prasad , Prime minister Nehru and Maulana Azad from the Goverment , and the Constructive Workers Group led by Vinobha Bhave and comprising of Jayaprakash Narayan, the economic thinker JC Kumarappa, the scholar and reformer Kakasaheb Kalelkar, the teacher Ashadevi Aryanayakam, the balladeer Tukdoji Maharaj, the expert on tribal affairs AV Thakkar, the intrepid rescuer of abducted women during Partition, Mridula Sarabhai, the Gandhian leader from Andhra, Konda Venkatappaiya, the khadi pioneer, Srikrishnadas Jaju.

There is an account of the meeting narrated by none other than Mahatma Gandhi's grandson Shri Gopal Krishna Gandhi in Hindustan Times.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/columnsothers/A-spectacular-story/Article1-710668.aspx

Television through the years

Why is it that the entire main stream media went gaga over Anna Hazare's reality show at Ramlila Grounds when it chose to ignore Baba Ramdev's show on 27 Feb 11, at the same venue ? Baba Ramdev's show was attended by Anna Hazare , among other stalwarts, and had drawn much larger crowds.

Why is it that floods at Delhi or Mumbai get more focus than more catastrophic and devastating floods in Bengal, Bihar or Assam ?

Media questions everybody , but who questions the media? If you do, you are accused of shooting the messenger. Is media just a messenger, or a perverter, modifier and amplifier of the messages it conveys?

There was a time when TV and Radio broadcasts  were totally Govt controlled. There were technological limitations. Large parts of the country had little or no access to TV. During my initial 6-7 years in the army, all I had access to was Pakistan TV and later Rupavahini for a year.  In any case Doordarshan was neither reliable nor real time . In remote areas it was not even accessible.

But in late 80s and early 90s, with winds of change sweeping across the globe, news coverage attained new dimensions. With Satellite communication, better technology and independent news agencies, nothing could be hidden or manipulated by the Govts.

In the year 1988-89, Pranoy Roy had the viewers riveted to his programme, "The World This Week'. The technology was there to upload or download live data from anywhere to any where. Independent, impartial, hardcore professionals were in key positions covering events global and local. I remember looking forward to Pronoy Roy's  "Good evening and welcome to the world this week....." It was then, that we had witnessed historical events like 'the fall of the Berlin wall' and 'break up of the Soviet Union'. Real time visuals left no doubts, as people saw the events as they unfolded from the safety of their drawing rooms. The Gulf war was witnessed by the whole world in real time.

Just when you thought, nothing could be hidden from the media, it is the media itself that became elusive and double-edged. Pressure from Govt or technological limitations has given way to  pressure from TRP, corporatism , or simply the rat-race.

Today you have the technology, freedom from Govt agencies and professionalism to report accurately; yet, the whole establishment lacks credibility. Even while one channel is breaking news on a sting operation, there is another channel questioning the authenticity of the audio-visual media used. Is it genuine or a 'cut and paste' job ?. Well, if technology can be used to expose a scam, it can also be misused for false accusation or for a cover up operation. Also corporatism has the editors looking at the bottomline even while deciding on what events to cover and how.

I wish we had just one 9 o' clock news from just one channel, like the good old Doordarshan; at least it was predictable. 

Is Majority always Right ??

Is Majority always right ? I don't think so, particularly when faced with a complex issue.

Let us not be carried away by the huge turn out at the Ramlila grounds 

At a Washington, D.C., press conference in 1952, Churchill was asked, "Doesn't it thrill you … to know that every time you make a speech the hall is packed to overflowing?"

Sir Winston: "It is quite flattering, but whenever I feel this way I always remember that if instead of making a political speech I was being hanged, the crowd would be twice as big."

I remember, while in High School,  we had a maths teacher who used to make us solve entire sets of problems as homework. The next day in the class, he would call for volunteers to solve the questions on the blackboard. For easier questions, a number of hands went up, but for difficult ones, there were very few. There were no punishments for failure and the reward for solving a difficult question was the thrill of walking up to the blackboard and having the entire class listen to you. It is only logical that when faced with difficult questions , the majority is clueless and it is a minority which gets it right.

So is it in real life; the only difference is that while in a class room, the questions are objective and the minority which gets it right, is heard, whereas in real life situations, issues are subjective and the majority hogs the centre stage.

Regarding, Anna Hazare's Movement, be it on print media, TV Channels or even in the cyberspace you hear only the majority view and the few dissenting voices are dismissed as 'congress stooge' . Someone has compiled a lot of information on the subject , including voices of dissent ...

http://janlokpalbillannahazare.blogspot.com/

Since it is the dissents that are rare to find, I recommend the link

http://janlokpalbillannahazare.blogspot.com/search/label/Dissent

Then there is a well researched article by Mukul Sharma (science writer and journalist), first published in May 2006. The paper covers the developmental work organized by Anna Hazare, at his village Ralegan Siddhi .

http://janlokpalbillannahazare.blogspot.com/2011/04/making-of-moral-authority-by-mukul.html

Along with much publicized good work done by Anna Hazare, it also highlights some of his methods to deal with family planning and prohibition, which to say the least are highly questionable.

A Tale of Two Fasts

There are many comparisons being made about Anna Hazare’ fast and Gandhiji’s fast.   I don’t intend giving a sermon, but just want to share my understanding of the circumstances that led to Gandhiji’s fast unto death on different occasions.

Gandiji has undertook fasting many times as a religious exercise or moral exercise, but only thrice it has been ‘Fast unto Death’ for achieving a ‘socio-political objective’.

These occasions were :-


1.    To stop all revolutionary activities after the Chauri Chaura Incident of 1922;


2.    Against the 1934 communal award giving separate electorates to Untouchable Hindus.


3.    In 1947, when he wanted to stop the bloodshed between Hindus and Muslims in Bengal and Delhi.


 In all three cases,Gandhi succeeded in achieving his aims.

The first time, he fasted to stop the jaggarnaut of Indian Freedom movement, when he felt the movement had strayed away from his principle of non-violence. In other words he fasted till violence stopped even if it meant the freedom movement losing its momentum. The fast was against violence.

The second time was when he felt that the British were resorting to ‘dividing ‘ India into Harijan India, Hindu India and Muslim India. The British left it to the Indian leaders to mutually resolve the issue and come to an understanding. So the fast was not against the British, not against Upper caste Hindus, not against Harijans /Dalits. What was it against?  It was against polarization based on castes. 

The third time , it was in Kolkata, in an independent India when the entire population was facing terrible hardships due to  Hindu -Muslim  riots. The fast was obviously against all forms of violence.

It is the 1932 fast, also called as the epic fast, that is much criticized for Gandhi's 'pressure tactics' against 'Dr Ambedkar'

  If the pressure was on Dr Ambedkar to give up his demand for a separate electorate, the pressure was on the entire Hindu community to be more inclusive, to breakaway from the practices , in vogue for centuries. Let us see the positive fall out of the fast towards social change.

At the very beginning of the fast week, the famous Kalighat temple of Kolkata and Ram Mandir of Benares, citadel of Hindu Orthodoxy, were thrown open to untouchables. In Delhi, cast Hindus and Harijans demonstratively fraternized in streets and temples. In Mumbai, a nationalist women's organization organized a poll in front of seven big temples. Ballot boxes, watched by volunteers, were placed outside the gates, and worshipers were asked to cast their votes on the admission of untouchables. The tally was 24, 797 for and 445 against. As a result, temples in which no Harijan foot had ever trod were opened to all.

In villages, small towns and big cities, congregations , organizations and citzens unions adopted resolutions to stop discriminating against untouchables; copies of these resolutions formed a man high heap in Gandhi's prison-yard.

A spirit of reform, penance and self-purification swept the land.During the six fast days, most Hindus refrained from going to cinemas, theatre, or restaurants. Weddings were postponed.

A description of the scene in Yeravada Prison, in the words of Louis Fischer goes like this;

"Gandhi lay on a white Iron cot in the shade of a low mango tree in the quiet prison yard. Patel and Mahadev Desai sat near him. Mrs Naidu had been transferred from the women's ward to nurse and guard him against excessive exertion. On a stool were some books, writing paper, bottles of water, salt and sodium bicarbonate.

Outside, the negotiators were racing with death........"


The major differences between then and now;

1.    Then, there was no Us and Them.....everyone was with Gandhi. Nobody vilified anybody, nor anyone gloated over the discomfort of another. Dr Ambedkar  and the Hindu leaders bargained hard and the public did everything to prove that there was  an earnest effort to abolish untouchability; and all were aware that they had to find a lasting solution to a national problem  or be prepared to lose Mahatma Gandhi for ever.  There was no sabre rattling from any quarters, you did not see anyone, bragging of his capacity to fast, or boasting about brownie  points scored.

2.       Every one of Gandhiji's  supporters at any point of time would have been only too happy to see him breaking his fast. There was no crowd to applaud with every 'hour' on the score board as if it was a T-20 match.

3.      It was an occasion for the entire public for self-purification . There was no  festive air that we see today.  

Tail-piece 
There was a news item today that there is heavy betting by bookies on how many days the fast would last and as to what would be the outcome.

Public Servants and Public Sentiments

    These days sentiments are running high and it is very fashionable to say 'I am with Anna Hazare' or 'I am anna' . Even media persons suggest that the Govt should take cognizance of the public sentiments. Taking cognizance is desirable but taking actions in line with these sentiments can be disastrous.

    Public servants should never be swayed by the prevailing Public Sentiments. Here's an example from History.

    In May 1948, Nathuram Godse was tried , for murder of Mahatma Gandhi. The assassin was not a member of the mafia but was some one who had many things in common with the mahatma. He was well read, he was patriotic, his motive was selfless and he was idealistic. Only difference was that he did not believe in the absolute ahimsa. He believed that any one on the wrong side of dharma should be fought, as In Gita , Lord Krishna himself motivated Arjuna to kill the reverred Bhishma for being on the wrong side of Dharma ...!!!!

    So Godse gave a long deposition in the court on his motives for his actions. He quoted extensively from the scriptures to justify every action of his.

    The speech had its effects on the small gathering in the court.

    Justice Khosla, who was a member of the jury, wrote after his retirement:

'There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs... I have no doubt that had the audience of the day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of 'not guilty' by an overwhelming majority."

    And the place was not Pune but Shimla; far away from the birthplace or stronghold of RSS or Hindu Mahasabha.

     Godse did not have the benefit of a public trial, Media, Facebook or Twitter. Had he had all these, it was quite possible that the sentiments in the court could have spilled over to cover the entire country, and the then Govt would been in a tight spot.

    In the actual course of events, Godse was sentenced to death and hanged . Among those calling for commutation of the death sentence for the defendants were Jawaharlal Nehru, as well as Gandhi's two sons, who felt that the two men on trial were pawns of RSS higher-ups, and in any case, executing their father's killers would dishonour his memory and legacy which included a staunch opposition to the death penalty.

    There was no place for sentiments and the law of the land prevailed.

    This is not a defence of Godse,, just an example to show that Govt, The Police and Judges have to act in consonance with the law of the land, not in line with the prevailing public sentiments.