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.

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.

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.

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.

How to destroy your own army

The Defence ministry decision that the date of birth of the army chief needs to be changed in the records is just another example of the cavalier manner in which the govt treats army and its chiefs. It is simply ridiculous.Why is the Indian govt hell bent on destroying the morale of its own army? Beats me, completely. Why don't they leave it to ISI? The country should also know that last year the SC upheld its order that successive pay commissions have fixed the army pay wrongly in terms of the rank pay and hence the govt must pay the dues now. Instead of cheering the SC order which would give the govt a chance to legitimately pay some money to its army officers, they have gone in for an appeal! Besides the govt, the Indian public too is grossly guilty of indifference. The army, which is called out even when there is a simple house collapse in Ghaziabad is being treated so shabbily by all. Wonder if I did the right thing by risking my life for 27 years for these very guys.

I am Anna

Indian Express editorial ( Carnival Society- 7 April ) flays the unrepresentative nature of the Anna movement. Technically, they are right. But, then, technically speaking, it can never be the case that legislators fairly elected from a population work against the interests of that population itself. However, it is so.
So, question the technicality.
Look dispassionately at the Anna wave. Firstly, the numbers may not be as large as those of the Jat movement, but look at the diversity and the methods adopted. Secondly, look at the rate of growth of the movement. Thirdly, the content of what Anna is demanding has still not been publicly opposed by anyone maybe only the form. It is true that some people in the crowd did not know the exact details of the proposed Lokpal bill, but even in their ignorance they were making an 'anti corruption,anti status-quo' point. Or weren't they?
The Anna movement clearly demolishes the success of the existing system to choose legislators who actually legislate for the good of their people. That much is now well established.

Play dice with life - and feel the ultimate pleasure

In the past, I have written at my post career revulsion at soldiers being hired guns. How did that idea ever come to me, a professional soldier. After so many decades, it became clear to me that PERHAPS it came to me as a result of my reading of the following pages for THE MAGUS by John Fowles -


He stood up.
"I have a test for you."
"A test?"
He went into his bedroom, returned almost at once with the oil lamp that had been on the table when we had dinner. In the white pool of light he put what he had brought. I saw a die, a shaker, a saucer, and a pillbox. I looked up at him on the other side of the table, at his severe eyes on mine.
"I am going to explain to you why we went to war. Why mankind always goes to war. It is not social or political. It is not countries that go to war, but men. It is like salt. Once one has been to war, one has salt for the rest of one's life. Do you understand?"
"Of course."
"So in my perfect republic it would be simple. There would be a test for all young people at the age of twenty-one. They would go to a hospital where they would throw a die. One of the six numbers would mean death. If they threw that they would be painlessly killed. No mess. No bestial cruelty. No destruction of innocent onlookers. But one clinical throw of the die."
"Certainly an improvement on war."
"You think so?"
"Obviously."
"You are sure?"
"Of course."
"You said you never saw action in the last war?"
"No."
He took the pillbox, and shook out, of all things, six large molars; yellowish, two or three with old fillings.
"These were issued to certain German troops during the last war, for use if they were interrogated." He placed one of the teeth on the saucer, then with a small downward jab of the shaker crushed it; it was brittle, like a liqueur chocolate. But the odor of the colorless liquid was of bitter almonds, acrid and terrifying. He hastily removed the saucer at arm's length to the far corner of the terrace; then returned.
"Suicide pills?"
"Precisely. Hydrocyanic acid." He picked up the die, and showed me six sides.
I smiled. "You want me to throw?"
"I offer you an entire war in one second."
"Supposing I don't want it?"
"Think. In a minute from now you could be saying, I risked death. I threw for life, and I won life. It is a very wonderful feeling. To have survived."
"Wouldn't a corpse be rather embarrassing for you?" I was still smiling, but it was wearing thin.
"Not at all. I could easily prove it was suicide." He stared at me, and his eyes went through me like a trident through a fish. With ninety-nine persons out of a hundred, I would have known it was a bluff; but he was different, and a nervousness had hold of me before I could resist it.
"Russian roulette."
"But less fallible. These pills work within a few seconds."
"I don't want to play."
"Then you are a coward, my friend." He leant back and watched me.
"I thought you believed brave men were fools."
"Because they persist in rolling the die again and again. But a young man who will not risk his life even once is both a fool and a coward."
And he had me. It was absurd, but I could not let my bluff be called.
I reached for the shaker.
"Wait." He leant forward, and put his hand on my wrist; then placed a tooth by my side. "I am not playing at make-believe. You must swear to me that if the number is six you will take the pill." His face was totally serious. I felt myself wanting to swallow.
"I swear."
"By all that is most sacred to you."
I hesitated, shrugged, and said, "By all that is most sacred to me."
He held out the die and I put it in the shaker. I shook it loosely and quickly and threw the die. It ran over the cloth, hit the brass base of the lamp, rebounded, wavered, fell.
It was a six.
Conchis was absolutely motionless, watching me. I knew at once that I was never, never going to pick up the pill. I could not look at him. Perhaps fifteen seconds passed. Then I smiled, looked at him and shook my head.
He reached out again, his eyes still on me, took the tooth beside me, put it in his mouth and bit it and swallowed the liquid. I went red. Still watching me, he reached out, and put the die in the shaker, and threw it. It was a six. Then again. And again it was a six. He spat out the empty shell of the tooth.
"What you have just decided is precisely what I decided that morning forty years ago at Neuve Chapelle. You have behaved exactly as any intelligent human being should behave. I congratulate you."
"But what you said? The perfect republic?"
"All perfect republics are perfect nonsense. The craving to risk death is our last great perversion. We come from night, we go into night. Why live in night?"
"But the die was loaded."
"Patriotism, propaganda, professional honor, esprit de corps — what are all those things? Cogged dice."

I don't know why it took so many years for the effect to take place. Somehow, the stupidity of any sense of nobility in dying for your country got to me - after almost three decades though.