[Reader-list] interesting article

[Rajkamal Goswami]

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/clicklit/entry/look-who-all-didn-t-like-the-anna-fast-imam-bukhari-and-shiv-sena-rahul-lalu-and-arundhati

Look, who all didn’t like the Anna fast: Imam Bukhari and Shiv Sena,
Rahul, Lalu and Arundhati Anshul Chaturvedi
30 August 2011, 08:36 PM IST

While I am not a blindfolded hero-worshipper of Anna, and in the past
few days there has been much written about the flaws, omissions and
oversights of people with him, I thought that the most interesting
part of the past fortnight is the assortment of people who stood up to
be counted against the manner in which Anna went about his campaign.

It has been a highly unusual coalition of forces, to say the least. A
coalition which was not just against the model of the Lokpal bill or
its technicalities, but against the very model of a sustained civil
society lobby forcing parliament to acknowledge the need to do
something, to look at change without the need for a 50-MP pressure
group within Parliament lobbying for it, without a political party
pressing for it and thereafter converting a subsequent victory into
electoral advantage.

Look at the spectrum that tore into Anna’s methods, objectives and doggedness.

Imam Bukhari, that progressive upholder of democratic institutions,
was clear that communalism was a greater threat than corruption, and
therefore by not raising that issue, by talking only of corruption,
and by raising such patently communal slogans such as Bharat Mata Ki
Jai and Vande Mataram, the Anna campaign had hurt the sentiments of
the community. And Anna got us to see what I would never have imagined
– Imam Bukhari sermonizing on the need to emulate Mahatma Gandhi’s
“inclusive approach”. Yes, Imam sahib, Gandhi “included grievances of
every Indian constituency”, to quote you, but tell me, if you find
Vande Mataram insufferable and communal, you could not have approved
of Gandhi’s bhajan sandhyas, surely? Just imagine, Raj Ghat has “Hey
Ram” inscribed – don’t Gandhi’s last words suffice to make him
communal in your perspective, if a Bharat Mata slogan is enough reason
for you to start dividing this along religious lines? Give us a break.

The Honourable Imam’s point was echoed soon after in better drafted
English by none other than Rahul Gandhi who warned that accepting such
civil society demands was dangerous, since today the proposed law is
against corruption but tomorrow it may “attack the plurality of our
society and democracy”. It was not heartening to see Rahul and Imam
take identical positions, but at least we got to have a clearer idea
of where everyone stands. Rahul also declared on the floor of the
House that Anna was attempting to issue individual ‘dictates’ which
would weaken the democratic process – which by definition is ‘lengthy
and lumbering’. Ergo, any attempt to make it the reverse – quick and
responsive – was, of course, a very subversion of democracy itself.
For the first time we had it on record that the political system is
not apologetic about what we keep cribbing about – it believes that if
we have democracy, the lengthy and lumbering is part of the package. I
have written at length on his speech in my previous post, so am not
taking it up again in detail.

A wide spectrum of leaders – many of whom freely abuse each other on
other occasions – stood united to ‘defend the backward classes’
against the agitation. But why is an anti-corruption agitation, a
demand for a stronger Lok Pal, a Forwards vs Backwards issue? Ram
Vilas Paswan, one of our more affluent leaders, explained that “People
from SC, ST and OBC communities are afraid if similar movements will
be launched to take away reservation and other benefits provided to
them by the Constitution.” But, Paswan ji, the three groups together
make up over half the country’s population. Would they not be able to
argue their points for themselves exactly the way the Anna campaigners
have done? Why do you need to nix the anti-corruption initiative on a
caste and creed ground? BSP leader Dara Singh Chauhan made the amazing
statement that “Dalits had been left out of the Lokpal Bill”. What
does that mean? Backwards were left out? Sikhs were left out? The
people from the North-East were left out? Displaced Kashmiri Pandits
were left out? The Lokpal Bill – or anything at all that instills the
fear of God in the salivating hordes of moneymakers growing in our
systems – is not something from which anyone can be “left out.”
Tomorrow we’ll lobby for appointing a Lok Pal along a rotational quota
system, lobbied for by respective parties? Can we never see beyond
this mindset for any national debate?

PL Punia, currently chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled
Castes, and Congress MP from Barabanki, who for years was Mayawati’s
trusted bureaucrat – memorably during the whole Taj Heritage Corridor
episode – said Anna’s campaign posed a “threat to Baba Saheb’s
Constitution”. Excuse me? You cannot reverse-appropriate the sanctity
of the Constitution along caste lines. I am sorry, but the Congress
was not Gujarati even if Gandhi and Patel did much to build it up, the
INA was not Bengali even if Bose ran it, and the Constitution does not
need to be defended along such lines even if Babasaheb was its
architect. What mindset is this? And what did Hazare ask for that
causes affront to the NCSC? Or this is an extension of the party line
by other means?

The other upholder of ethical behaviour and Constitutional sanctity,
Lalu Yadav, was clear during the debate in the Lok Sabha that ‘This is
not the first time that Parliament is debating the issue of
corruption. There is nothing historical about today's debate.’ Come
on, Lalu. Debates over corruption can hardly be expected to strike a
chord with you. Of course it is not the first time corruption is being
debated. That is exactly why there is this much angst – you know you
can sit and debate and ensure nothing is actually done which makes
anyone uncomfortable. Except that, this time, the pressure was far too
much to acknowledge that there has to be more than debate. And you
have a problem that this is an NGO game and “Yeh log chanda pani se
apna jal pan karna chhahate hain”? I don’t think it’s a secret that
far too many NGOs are more interested in funds than work. But you,
dear Lalu, of all people, have a problem with people arranging “chanda
pani”? Really?

But the anti-Anna angst has not been a self anointed backward /
minorities leaders’ alignment; far from it. The Shiv Sena doesn’t like
Anna’s agenda either. The Sena’s Sanjay Raut told the media that
Anna’s Ralegaon Siddhi is the ‘Gangotri of corruption’ and declared
that fasts are not going to end corruption. True enough. The Sena has
never believed in fasts to end anything. Far simpler to throw stones
at buses, theatres, and at anyone you don’t agree with. Raut was also
distraught that “Some NGOs are misusing Anna’s name to make money.”
Now, what would the Sena know about making money, eh?

At the other end of the spectrum is Arundhati, of course, who had her
share of the limelight through her impassioned article, wherein she
explained that the Maoists and the Lokpal Bill both sought to
overthrow the Indian State; that Anna supported Raj Thackery and Modi;
that this was a war backed by Corporates. The one thing I comprehended
was in her concluding para: ‘This awful crisis has been forged out of
the utter failure of India's representative democracy, in which the
legislatures are made up of criminals and millionaire politicians who
have ceased to represent its people’. Now, come to think of it, isn’t
that something like what Om Puri and Kiran Bedi were saying, in less
stylised prose?

So, if you look back, you realize that Imam Bukhari thought Anna was
communal, while the Shiv Sena thought he was corrupt. Rahul thought he
was issuing individual dictates, Lalu thought the whole debate he
raised was pointless, while Arundhati thought it was a grand
conspiracy.

While I do realize that the Lokpal agitation has had its limitations
and deficiencies, this rewind of all those who have slammed it leaves
one with the sense that if they all think this needs to be stopped –
well, somewhere, fundamentally, this man is doing something right.

The biggest validation of the Anna campaign is, ironically enough, the
gallery of those whom it made uncomfortable.

-- 
Rajkamal