The article
‘Messianism versus Democracy’ in today’s The Hindu was really a food for
thought. It has made me to ponder a lot on the current state of affairs going
on in our country and on reaching the edge I am even forced to compare it to
the ongoing Jasmine revolution in Western Asia and African nations.
The term
used and defined by the author is indeed a picturesque presentation of Anna’s
agitation and his demands. There is no doubt in the proposition that the
thousands of people gathering in Ramlila ground and elsewhere are mere
spectators of this unprecedented happening, certainly exasperated by the
unleashed corruption rampant in almost every office of Indian administration.
The author has also alleged Anna’s methods to be undemocratic. Though since day
one, Anna’s team endeavour has been of high integrity to clean up India of the
clutter created by corrupt officers and politicians, and this is the cause that
is being shared by all the enthusiastic supporters of Anna, but there is no
denial to fact that cause can never justify the means. And so is the
methodology of stubbornness and holding indefinite fast unjustified. It is
because such methods simply hold the authorities hostage to the huge threat of
a disorder, unrest amongst public which can lead to national security crisis
and eventually a coup d’état. But
what is worth a thought here is that why did we ever come to such a critical
situation?
The author
has suggested that Anna’s agitation is devoid of informed public debates, and
has juxtaposed it with the public rallies and election campaigns of our
legislators which create public opinion by rightly or wrongly defending their
agendas against opposition’s. And then the final verdict rests in the hands of
people, who are held supreme by the socio-political contract called
Constitution of India. However I am not very convinced on this point, as Team
Anna has sufficiently circulated their idea by using printed material,
electronic media, and organised public seminars to let people know as to what
is the basic difference between their Jan Lokpal and the government’s version.
In fact here it is the social responsibility of media to spread awareness among
people by broadcasting good talk shows and publishing articles, instead of just
holding referendums or public polls. Still it is unfortunate that many of the
Anna supporters are ignorant of what Anna is demanding and are just following
him because they have lost faith in government and are overwhelmed by a 74 year
old ready to sacrifice his life for a common cause.
Now coming
back to the debate of whether Anna’s methods are undemocratic or not, I
personally feel, that yes they are. It is because Anna is not ready to budge
from his version of the bill and wants the Parliament to pass it
unconditionally and that too in a very short time period, lest he shall fast.
He has shook the govt. by showing support of people, who are supporting him by
public protests, and may call it the choice of people and hence the democracy.
But this is a kind of parallel government, as we do have constitutional methods
to win support of people and make laws. What he should do instead is to put his
views forward and let the legislators, Parliament, Standing Committees and
expert, chosen by We the people of India, to decide the best. Or he should
himself fight the elections.
Now this
again raises the question of credibility in the present government. The flip
flops of our political leadership clearly exhibit a lack of political will to
effectively fight against corruption. Under these circumstances, does it mean
that We the people of India have no
way to correct a mistake that we made in the General Elections for five long
years!! And who guarantees that the next party to come in power will not murder
the aspirations and emotions of people. So does it boil down to the fact that
Anna must himself contest elections? But he alone can’t even make a change as
an MP. To pass a bill, he needs support of majority in both houses of
Parliament. We may be ready to have blind faith in Anna and his small group.
But will we believe so easily in others who will be contesting elections for
the same purpose as Anna and let us assume even at behest of Anna, but may
always turn hostile later, even out of Anna’s control. Can we hand over the
right to write our destiny for five years to anyone so easily? My answer is No.
So what’s
the alternative to this apparently irresolvable logjam? We adopted
representative democracy at the time of independence because it was felt that
it would not be feasible to have a general referendum on every issue that
arises in a country of 300 million (now
1.2 billion). Moreover having freshly won independence after a long and
united struggle, it was believed that the political leadership could be trusted
to make laws that would be good for all. But today the situation is different.
We need a representative democracy in true terms, and there must be methods to
register the voice of nation on issues of such colossal importance apart from
the five yearly elections. It is high time that we adopt the right measures and
constitutional and electoral reforms in the present scenario where capitalist
tendencies are growing, and everyone is too busy to be considerate but for
himself. And it may not be wrong to say that for such reforms, such Annas will
have to come forward even if it leads to a second Independence struggle.
- hi mai ek so called uchi jaati ka banda hun par mai sochta hu aarakshan must hai q ki bohat dabaya hai humne in choti jaati k logo ko kaam k naam par agar hum unhe mauka nai dete to we shd not be called even human .... haan ab aarakshan bill mai sudhar hone chahiye taaki jo log iska galat fayada le rahe hai wo dur ho har aadmi apne liye sochta hai sirf to hi faisle nai kar pata kya sahi hai or kya galat saari history pado india ki ...ki kya kya kia humne inke saath aur wo haamre sath ho to kyaho
For more of these watch this