I have already written that the most potent enemy the Indian army faces is the Indian defence ministry. The ministry is hell bent on destroying its own army. The defence minister's ruling to change the official age of the army chief is a case in point. Now that the army chief has filed a statutory complaint against the defence minister's decision, the point has been proved.
Do we even appreciate what has happened? The chief of Indian army has felt aggrieved enough by the decision of the defence minister to raise it officially! Could there be a worse situation than this? It is like the home minister revolting against the PM on a trivial issue and filing a case in the Supreme court!
Yes, the official age of an army official, irrespective of the rank of the official,is a trivial issue on the radar of the defence ministry. What was the need for the defence minister to give it so much importance? Why did the defence minister make his own army chief look like a liar and manipulator? Did he really expect the chief to take this insult lying down? If he had, he would have belied the army code of personal honour. After all, the army officers do not live by the code of the politicians and thank the good lord for that.
Before you argue that technically the defence minister is correct, let me add that my objection is not that his action is illegal. That question will be answered by the courts. I am questioning the wisdom of the action.
It is unwise to create a situation where you may have to publicly cross swords with your army chief. Would you much rather be right or useful ( to the country and army )? Does the defence minister not have even one sensible advisor who could foresee that the action of the defence ministry will force the army chief to go public. And what after that? Strategic sagacity largely depends on your ability to look three moves ahead. What moves did the defence minister envisage after making their own army chief look like a Mr 420?
Can the 'honest' defence minister not think beyond his nose? If so, how will he take strategic decisions in war? If he can't control even a simple interaction like this, how will he steer war scenarios to India's benefit?
If I were to choose between an honest but ineffective civil servant or politician, and a dishonest but effective one, I'd unhesitatingly choose the latter.
Reminds me of an episode of the American civil war. There was a general who was very effective but an alchoholic. His detractors complained of his drinking habits to the chief, who made this classic reply, ' Find out what brand of whiskey he drinks. I want to send several cartons of same to those who just sit on their backsides, drinking pure water.'
Get the point?
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
The allegations against Anna team
In the last few days, I have been reading a lot of angry comments against theatrics and anti-'parliamentary democratic institutions' acts by Anna team. A lot of parliamentarians of good repute e.g. Salman Khursheed are representing the government. So,the reader is forced to question the Anna team allegation that most parliamentarians are 'unpudhs ( illiterate ) and 'ganwars ( country bumpkins ). The uncivil language of the civil society has become their Achille's heal.
I have been seriously thinking about this.
Raising objections against theatrics and the uncivil language of the team is as churlish and trivial as it can get. Both these are 'bad' acts, no doubt. But just see things is perspective, in proportion. The 'bad' acts have been done in such small degree that trying to use them as counterweights to the good that they are doing is simply outrageous. Even the moon has a blemish.
What has been team Anna's achievement which is sought to be cancelled out by these random 'bad' acts?
They have managed to force the government to now support a really strict Lokpal bill, after rejecting other bills 8 times in the past which was were not even one tenth as powerful as this one! Do you see the enormity of what these guys have done. In one stroke they have outwitted the evil attempts of the combined strength of at least 8 parliaments. That's colossal. In my son's American terminology, that's awesome.
The government must be kicking itself in the head for not having passed the weak bills in the past.
And what about the suave and genteel Salman Khursheed, the erudite Somnath Chatterjee and the really 'honest & humble' Manmohan Singh?
These guys are god guys but what have they done in the last 40 years to cleanse public platforms of Laloo Yadavs, Amar Singhs and the A Rajas? Nothing at all. These good guys have all supported the bad guys for their selfish motives ( ensuring benefits for their party at the expense of cleansing public platform IS a selfish act surely ). They did not do this public service for 40 years so how are they so blameless? Being suave, genteel, erudite, honest & humble is not what we put you there for. We put you there to help us, which you didn't.
And do not say that it can not be done.
A 74 year old ex sepoy with no official power, could do it with just a handful of planners. Never before have so many owed so much to so few.
So, the suave, genteel, erudite, honest & humble ministers - please see where you stand in the glare of history. You have failed yourself.
I have been seriously thinking about this.
Raising objections against theatrics and the uncivil language of the team is as churlish and trivial as it can get. Both these are 'bad' acts, no doubt. But just see things is perspective, in proportion. The 'bad' acts have been done in such small degree that trying to use them as counterweights to the good that they are doing is simply outrageous. Even the moon has a blemish.
What has been team Anna's achievement which is sought to be cancelled out by these random 'bad' acts?
They have managed to force the government to now support a really strict Lokpal bill, after rejecting other bills 8 times in the past which was were not even one tenth as powerful as this one! Do you see the enormity of what these guys have done. In one stroke they have outwitted the evil attempts of the combined strength of at least 8 parliaments. That's colossal. In my son's American terminology, that's awesome.
The government must be kicking itself in the head for not having passed the weak bills in the past.
And what about the suave and genteel Salman Khursheed, the erudite Somnath Chatterjee and the really 'honest & humble' Manmohan Singh?
These guys are god guys but what have they done in the last 40 years to cleanse public platforms of Laloo Yadavs, Amar Singhs and the A Rajas? Nothing at all. These good guys have all supported the bad guys for their selfish motives ( ensuring benefits for their party at the expense of cleansing public platform IS a selfish act surely ). They did not do this public service for 40 years so how are they so blameless? Being suave, genteel, erudite, honest & humble is not what we put you there for. We put you there to help us, which you didn't.
And do not say that it can not be done.
A 74 year old ex sepoy with no official power, could do it with just a handful of planners. Never before have so many owed so much to so few.
So, the suave, genteel, erudite, honest & humble ministers - please see where you stand in the glare of history. You have failed yourself.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Parliamentary democracy or undemocratic parliamentarians?
Government's most powerful objection to team Anna's movement, ' isn't this negating all that parliamentary democracy stand for?'. Really difficult to counter.
But there is catch. The question is cleverly framed but is not reflective of the ground realities.
Who can question parliamentary democracy, which is the most laudable theory. But you can surely question the people that today run parliamentary democracy in India. If the drivers of that lovely theory were as laudable as the theory itself, there would be no Anna phenomenon. Not even hundred guys will visit Anna doing anashan and he will die hungry, incognito.
So, do not throw in my face what parliamentary democracy is supposed to mean. See through what it has actually become in India.
Did you know that Laloo Yadav and Amar Singh will be voting on the anti corruption bill? That is what parliamentary democracy has become.
Do you realize that your PM has not been elected directly by the people? From amongst those who are directly elected, we couldn't find one good enough to lead the nation. That is what parliamentary democracy has become in India.
No one is questioning parliamentary democracy. We are questioning our leaders who have shamed parliamentary democracy.
But there is catch. The question is cleverly framed but is not reflective of the ground realities.
Who can question parliamentary democracy, which is the most laudable theory. But you can surely question the people that today run parliamentary democracy in India. If the drivers of that lovely theory were as laudable as the theory itself, there would be no Anna phenomenon. Not even hundred guys will visit Anna doing anashan and he will die hungry, incognito.
So, do not throw in my face what parliamentary democracy is supposed to mean. See through what it has actually become in India.
Did you know that Laloo Yadav and Amar Singh will be voting on the anti corruption bill? That is what parliamentary democracy has become.
Do you realize that your PM has not been elected directly by the people? From amongst those who are directly elected, we couldn't find one good enough to lead the nation. That is what parliamentary democracy has become in India.
No one is questioning parliamentary democracy. We are questioning our leaders who have shamed parliamentary democracy.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Elected representatives, my foot!
The main objection to Anna's views is invariably this - after all, the parliamentarians are genuinely elected representatives of the people, while Anna team is not.
The point can not be faulted on factual grounds.
However, it raises the greater question that our system of elected representatives has failed. Miserably.
I attended the Thane rally of Anna. Seeing the crowd first hand,I am even more convinced that the people are against whatever our elected representatives stand for.
One simple fact - In the standing committee of parliament, it is Laloo Yadav and Amar Singh who will have their say on the anti-corruption bill.Vow.
Neither the parliament, nor the constitution is supreme. People are supreme. The constitution opens with these shattering words, 'We, the people of India, -----'
In any case, the time for debates and dialogues is over. It is action time. It took an army soldier to teach these parliamentarians the value of action over debate.
Why explain? Millions following Anna are explanation enough.Someone quipped, ' But this is dictatorship of the masses'. Arvind Kejriwal ( May his tribe increase ) replied, ' dictatorship of masses ( unless it is for an illegal cause ) is what is called democracy'.
How right.
The movement is not about the Jan Lokpal bill alone. It is about how unrepresentative our elected representatives are.
The point can not be faulted on factual grounds.
However, it raises the greater question that our system of elected representatives has failed. Miserably.
I attended the Thane rally of Anna. Seeing the crowd first hand,I am even more convinced that the people are against whatever our elected representatives stand for.
One simple fact - In the standing committee of parliament, it is Laloo Yadav and Amar Singh who will have their say on the anti-corruption bill.Vow.
Neither the parliament, nor the constitution is supreme. People are supreme. The constitution opens with these shattering words, 'We, the people of India, -----'
In any case, the time for debates and dialogues is over. It is action time. It took an army soldier to teach these parliamentarians the value of action over debate.
Why explain? Millions following Anna are explanation enough.Someone quipped, ' But this is dictatorship of the masses'. Arvind Kejriwal ( May his tribe increase ) replied, ' dictatorship of masses ( unless it is for an illegal cause ) is what is called democracy'.
How right.
The movement is not about the Jan Lokpal bill alone. It is about how unrepresentative our elected representatives are.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Anna speak - I agree
What is the essence of Anna speak.
1. Present systems says 'select good guys as your representative. Having done so, rely on their goodness. Treat them like infallible demi-gods'.
2. Anna concept says - 'Do not bother too much on the goodness aspect of your representatives. Have an accountability system and a process which forces the representatives to behave, irrespective of their 'goodness factor'.
Anna system is a process based system, the other one is not.
Any election system, particularly one that deals with Indians conditions, will always throw up 'bad' guys in power. Given this fact, the sensible way is to look for power of process rather than power of goodness of leaders.
A lot of problem are nitpicking with the methods and some statements of Anna team. Come on, don't be churlish. Don't miss the woods for the trees.
Anna, or individuals representing him, are nobody. The concept and solution they have thrown up are everything. If after so much support, some people are still not convinced that this is it, God save them.
And stop comparing Anna with Gandhi and feeling smug when you are able to prove that Anna is no Gandhi.Of course, not. For one thing, Anna's name starts A, while Gandhi's starts with G!
Comparisons are odious and also irrelevant when studying the contributions by either.Gandhi and Anna are two people, at two different times in two different environments.
1. Present systems says 'select good guys as your representative. Having done so, rely on their goodness. Treat them like infallible demi-gods'.
2. Anna concept says - 'Do not bother too much on the goodness aspect of your representatives. Have an accountability system and a process which forces the representatives to behave, irrespective of their 'goodness factor'.
Anna system is a process based system, the other one is not.
Any election system, particularly one that deals with Indians conditions, will always throw up 'bad' guys in power. Given this fact, the sensible way is to look for power of process rather than power of goodness of leaders.
A lot of problem are nitpicking with the methods and some statements of Anna team. Come on, don't be churlish. Don't miss the woods for the trees.
Anna, or individuals representing him, are nobody. The concept and solution they have thrown up are everything. If after so much support, some people are still not convinced that this is it, God save them.
And stop comparing Anna with Gandhi and feeling smug when you are able to prove that Anna is no Gandhi.Of course, not. For one thing, Anna's name starts A, while Gandhi's starts with G!
Comparisons are odious and also irrelevant when studying the contributions by either.Gandhi and Anna are two people, at two different times in two different environments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
