So the entire hoopla and never-ending melodrama of talk shows, opinions and statements that India saw for most part of April doesn't seem to end. While I understand the stature of the man in the center of the entire story, and his seemingly untiring crusade against corruption (a very informative report available at Call of the commons: People vs corruption : report of a CSE media task force to Ralegan Siddhi), I do not agree to the overall semantics of the strike and its fallout. Either the intentions seem too naive, or they seem too politically motivated to play to the galleries.
In any democracy, the only channel for the public if and when all the four pillars fail is to hold themselves true to the electoral mandate. The essential premise of the democracy always remain a peaceful elimination process to remain with the best possible candidate. Bear in mind that "best" in this regard always remain the "least bad" option rather than the other way around simply because of the way any functioning social entity on the earth remains which is allowed to assign leadership rather than being stamped with it. All the functions that a leadership is expected to provide - the legislation, the judiciary, the executive, etc. are just various forms of measured accountability, so that the leadership can be audited in relative terms and hence provide more information to the voting public to make a decision.
Any methods of getting around the system by bypassing it are wrong - protests, non-cooperation, violent agitations, and even hunger strikes. These methods, no matter how moral or peaceful they are presented as, eventually aim to hold a government hostage to its demands, and play on public sentiment and gullible opinion to get the balls rolling in one direction against the other. This is not very different from kidnapping a major film star, or to hijack an entire plane full of passengers - the only major difference being that the notion of hijacking a plane is universally considered an extremist, divisive and generally evil act, but a hunger strike is considered to be a Gandhian, peaceful way of expressing protest. In one way, this is like a small kid telling his dad that I won't eat till you get me the fancy toy I saw at the toy shop, and in another way, this is like a group of terrorists telling a Government that if you don't pardon these convicts, we'll kill all passengers.
Any kind of peaceful expression of displeasure or protest always need to be aimed at drawing attention to an issue. Of course the public is free to have its own viewpoint and opinion about an issue, but the entire landscape changes rapidly when such protests are associated with a warning of do-this-else-i'll-do-this type. If this continues, the entire law and order system of a society can be effectively held hostage by any respected member of the society, and we can bid farewell to democracy. Tomorrow a Sherawat can go on a "peaceful hunger strike" claiming she'll starve herself to death if the Censor Board doesn't allow hardcore porn in mainstream cinema, Tendulkar can go on a "peaceful hunger strike" claiming he'll starve himself to death if the ICC doesn't officially announce him as the best batsman of all time, and Advani can go on a "peaceful hunger strike" claiming he'll starve himself to death if he is not exonerated from all Ayodhya related charges.
Agreed that its a fair argument that the intentions of such a move would and should be questioned before public support can be gathered and opinions be influenced. But clearly the opinion depends on the demand at that point. If Sachin demands a Bharat Ratna for himself, he'd be considered selfish, but what if Bachchhan demands this award for Sachin? At that point, he'd be considered a messenger of righteousness, and clearly make headline news for 6 hours before the Government makes changes to its protocols and bestow the award on Sachin.
In Anna's case, I am also trying to understand the core intentions of the strike. It was perfectly timed, right after the World Cup win for India, and before the IPL marketing takes over, so that the media would provide undivided attention to his "cause". Also, the entire promise of Lokpal bill is false, even in its most progressive form, it does nothing except creating a new office with an officeholder who can act as a glorified auditor for all legislature, executive and judiciary, and still be appointed via the corridors of the same house. How different could it be from appointing a CVC or an Auditor General or a CJI? After all, every political party has its own candidates for these positions, and they end up being ceremonial positions more than anything else. The idea of not allowing mainstream politicians for talking, but letting people like Ramdev and Amir Khan sit alongside when these people have for long mentioned their desires of being "apolitically political" in near future speaks of, as I mentioned in the beginning, either naive intentions or political drama.
To conclude, an electoral mandate should and must remain the only manner for public to express their displeasure. Holding Government hostage undermines the basic values of democracy, and should not be welcomed in any way. Always remember, in a democracy you don't get the Government you wish for, you get a Government you deserve!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment