31 December, 2011


Mahatma Gandhi was shot dead on January 30, 1948 by Nathuram Godse who did so because he was against his methods. Godse in his final address to the court explained ‘WHY I KILLED GANDHI!’ In my previous post on Mahatma Gandhi’s Assassination, I pointed that Mahatma Gandhi and his ideas will remain in the hearts of the Generations to come and surely will! See, we have seen the negative side of Godse’s act, but, was he totally wrong on his part? The answer is ‘No’, he wasn’t! After the murder, Nathuram enjoyed certain popularity among the refugees, particularly the women, who had borne the brunt of the Partition atrocities. But on the whole, the population was angry with him.
Nathuram Godse was a follower of Gandhi in many respects, e.g. he was very active in organizing inter-caste activities involving the Untouchables. But he had come to decide in 1947-48 that the Mahatma had betrayed everything he had stood for. Indeed, Gandhi had declared that Pakistan would only be created "over my dead body", but when the hour came, the champion of fasts unto death did not try this pressure tactic to force Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the Pakistan movement, to abandon his demand for Partition. Millions of people, mostly Hindus and Sikhs in West Panjab and East Bengal, felt confident that Partition would not take place because the Mahatma gave them that assurance; and they felt betrayed when he threw them to the wolves. Nathuram Godse worked in the relief operations for Hindu-Sikh refugees from Pakistan, many of whom had been raped or had lost relatives and he held Gandhi responsible for their plight on two counts. Firstly, Gandhi could have prevented Partition, or at least staked his life in an attempt to do so; this he failed to do, probably because he knew that Jinnah would not give in. This failure also cast a shadow over the earlier occasions when he had staked his life to pressure people into doing his bidding: it now seemed that he had only used this tactic with people who could be counted upon to give in, so that there had never been any real risk of having to fast unto actual death. 
Secondly, even after conceding Partition, a lot of bloodshed could have been averted by means of an orderly exchange of population, as advocated by the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, free India's first Law Minister: all Muslims to Pakistan, all non-Muslims to India. At the time, neutral British troops were still around to oversee such an orderly migration, and the psychological climate was ready for this lesser-evil solution. Instead, Gandhi and his appointee as Congress leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, refused to countenance this bloodless solution out of attachment to the multiculturalist ideal. The result was that a spontaneous partial exchange of population took place anyway, but under much worse circumstances: nearly a million people were killed.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can only conclude that this second criticism is entirely justified. In India, the Hindu-Muslim riots which were a regular feature of pre-Independence India have resumed. In Pakistan, the situation is much worse: the non-Muslim minorities are being terrorized and squeezed out, and in 1971, the Pakistani army killed perhaps as many as two million Hindus in East Bengal, the biggest genocide after World War 2. In total, more than 3 million people (only counting the mortal victims, not the far more numerous refugees) would have been saved if the Indian leaders in 1947 had had the wisdom to settle for the lesser evil of an exchange of population. By contrast, the first criticism, the one uppermost in Godse's mind, is less justified. It is unfair to blame the Mahatma for the Partition, considering that most other Congress leaders had endorsed the very policies which had led to the Partition, along with the Mahatma or even before his rise. The Mahatma's failure was, in fact, the failure of Hindu society as a whole. But in the charged post-Partition atmosphere, he was made to bear most of the responsibility, and forgotten were the services he had rendered to his people, to the Fickle-minded People!
The final straw after which Godse "could not tolerate this man to live any longer", was Gandhi's "fast unto death" to force the Indian Government to pay 550 million Rupees to Pakistan, and to force the Hindu and Sikh refugees in Delhi to vacate the abandoned mosques and Muslim homes where they had found shelter (this was mid-winter 1947-48, temperature close to freezing). The money was Pakistan's fair share of British India's treasury, but it was nonetheless a strange and unique event to see one country pay such a sum of money to a country which had just invaded it: Pakistani troops were occupying a large part of Kashmir (which had by then legally acceded to India), where they exterminated the entire non-Muslim population. This moral statement, that certain fairness standards are to be maintained even in wartime, was too much for Godse and a few companions. On 30 January 1948, he shot the Mahatma at the beginning of his evening prayer-meeting in Birla House, Delhi. 
The aftereffects of the Mahatma’s killing were even more disheartening, as the man who led a country of millions to independence just got a Memorial in return as Raj Ghat. His ideas were neither followed by the leaders nor by the people who gave him the name BAPU! This way, Gandhi's death brought the death of Gandhism as a political factor in India. It strengthened the position of people who used his name but were objectively the worst enemies of everything he had stood for!

25 December, 2011


Few weeks ago, the Government from nowhere took a decision of opening up the retail sector for the Foreign Direct Investment i.e. FDI. The Govt. has got a wide criticism on their surprise decision of inviting Walmart, Tesco and France’s Carrefour to set their malls in the country. This looks odd and is definitely another self-destructing decision by the Government. Even the Opposition is surprised on the decision on FDI and they were not even aware that this is coming. See, the Government do reserves the right to make and implement the decisions, but the decision on FDI will affect the future of our country. The Government has not even consulted the Opposition. This looks really odd and creates some doubt in the mind on the credibility of this UPA Government.
Now the basic and the obvious question arises, ‘Why a Walmart is Needed?’ The Government has a vision that the FDI in Multi Brand Retail Sector will increase the inflow of the Dollar in Indian Economic System. And thus, the huge economic deficit which the Indian Economy in facing will come under control, or rather will decrease. More than 80% of the Crude Oil that we need is imported and is brought in dollars. But in India, the Petroleum Products made from it are sold in Rupees. The value of Rupee has decreased in the last few months. It is more than 53 at present which was well under 50 a year ago. So, the inflow of dollar into the Indian Economy will heal the wounds created by the heavy deficits which the Economy has got in the recent past.
The point here in the opposition of the decision on Walmart is that the countries which have adopted it are not in a very good position either. We are a democratic country and we liberalized our economy to the foreign investment in the year 1991, a very long time after we got the Independence, ‘WHY?’ Because we wanted the domestic retailers to prosper and avoided the risks of freeing the economy to the external(global) forces. Unfortunately, we have not gained anything by delaying the liberalization. There was a time when the BAJAJ Scooters had monopoly in the country and the waiting period for a scooter was 10 YEARS! It seems that the Government is trying to follow the path for development followed by the developed countries like the USA.
If we are trying to follow the path of development followed by the US, then we must keep in mind that the USA is thrice in Geographical Area as compared to us and the population there is one third of ours. So, the density of population there is very low as compared to India. I read an editorial in a newspaper in which the writer mentioned his personal experience on his tour of the US. A resident there told him that to buy even toothpaste; they have to travel 3 kms to the Walmart. The Walmart has destroyed the small retailers there. If this has happened in the US, why can’t it happen in India? It certainly ‘will’! Most of the products in retail Walmart imports from China. Indian markets are, at present, flooded with Chinese products. With the Walmart setting up in the country, this flood will not take long to become a Tsunami.
Indeed, it is not the case that everything will go against us if the decision on the FDI is implemented. It will help us in certain ways to climb up the ladder of development or rather to make a ladder to climb up. As I earlier said, the inflow of the dollars in Indian Economy will boost up the Industrial Production. A large portion of the Agricultural yield gets spoiled because of the lack of the warehouses and the cold storages and to build them we need money. Walmart will build its own warehouses and cold storages, so, in a way, this wastage will not take place and the farmers will be able to sell the entire yield as there will be demand.       
But, the risk we have is too much and to take a chance can well work against us, i.e. can divert us from the path of development. For now, the implementation of the FDI is postponed by the Government because of the wide criticism the Govt. has got from a farmer to a retailer, from the opposition to the Socialist Anna Hazare and the vast following he has. But, make no mistake; the decision on FDI is ‘DELAYED’, not ‘DROPPED’. The Government might have postponed it because they have to deal with the LOKPAL BILL in the current Lok Sabha and they don’t want to fight war on all fronts.
May God give the strength to the UPA’s ‘COALITION’ Government to fight this war. But, in the end, the Country should emerge as the winner.

The inspector in this add is doing the same work, the Walmart is expected to do. The Walmart wants only the best quality of food grains, fruits and vegetables. 

08 December, 2011


There is a popular phrase in Hindi which says,”JAB GEEDAD KI MAUT AATI HAI TO WHO SHAHAR KI AUR BHAGTA HAI,” which means that everything starts going wrong for a person when his bad time starts and he starts taking self-destructing decisions. This is what happening with the ‘Manmohan Singh & Co.’ or rather ‘Sonia Gandhi & Sons’ i.e. the Congress Party. First, Anna Hazare’s campaign proved fatal to the reputation of the Government. Second, the price hike. The recent price hike in the petrol price which proved to be heavy on the pocket of the Common Man, but, the Common Man of India has adapted himself to these blows by the Govt; he is a strong fellow, mind you! Third, the act of passing the Cabinet’s recommendation of implementation of the FDI(Foreign Direct Investment), for which the Government got wide criticism and ultimately, changed their decision. Four, the recent strange looking act of the Union Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, who, from nowhere, notified the Social Networking sites Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. to censor the posts of their users to make sure that there is no antisocial voice there and nothing is posted against the leaders or the religion. The Govt. or rather Mr. Sibal thinks that any antisocial activity on these social networking sites can seed civil unrests and can distract the people and their thinking.
See, on the social networking sites, it is in your hand whom to make a friend, what you want to see and from whom you want to see. If you are not fond of ideas of a person, you can simply hide him. The Freedom of Speech is our right. But, this is a clear case of constraining our right of speech.
I heard an eminent cartoonist on a news channel saying that the social networking sites help the people get relieved of all their frustration on the Government by expressing their views on their network. He also referred a story in which a person employed in a company after his job hours goes to a graveyard and remains there for half an hour and then goes to his house. One day his office mates follow him to see what he does there. What they found was amazing! He has kept a photo of his ‘BOSS’ there and goes there to give the photo a beat. This is what helped him get relieved of his frustration. The stubborn attitudes of the Government on the Lokpal Bill, which was supported by millions of people, the time and again hikes in the petrol prices, are all frustrating the common man. The social networking websites provide a platform for the common man to get relieved from the anguish by making a laugh of it. So, in a way, it helps the Government!
There are various other grounds on which we can compete with China which are very much feasible for us, then why are we trying to follow the unfeasible changes, that is censoring the social networking sites, the FDI (which is going to haunt us in long term). India does not have the capabilities which China has. They banned Google and launched their very own search engine. They have banned many social networking sites and replaced them with their own substitutes for them. In India, the democracy of ours disables the Government even thinking about it. 

04 December, 2011

Mahatma Gandhi’s Assassination: The Silence of January 30, 1948!

Mahatma Gandhi, a person that guided the path of freedom to the millions of Indians, a leader that raised his voice against the racism persisted in South Africa, a man who is known as the ‘Father of the Nation,’ was shot dead on January 30, 1948 by Nathuram Godse who did so because he was against his methods. In my last post, I wrote what he said in his last address to the court.
In first instance, one would say, he was an innocent person with all the reasons in the world to shoot Gandhiji. See, we Indians are fickle-minded people. We make a person hero today and make him a villain the next day. We are not bothered about the work he has done as a hero, but notices the work he might not have done. This is what happened recently with Prashant Bhushan, Kiran Bedi and a few other people involved in the India Against Corruption Campaign.
Nathuram Godse was born in a hindu family and according to him, had a free thinking unfettered by politics or the religion. He actively worked for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. He joined the RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. To his final address to the court, one of the judges said that if the decision on his appeal was to be made by the audience present there on that day, they would have passed a ‘not guilty’ verdict with an overwhelming majority. Such was the impact of Godse’s final address.
In his address, Godse said that he killed Gandhi because he was against Gandhi’s blackmailing tactics of fasting unto death. He blamed Gandhi for the partition of India, which led thousands of people dead in the wake of religious unrest. Actually, it was the desires of Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammad Ali Jinnah to see themselves as the Prime minister of Hindustan which was not possible until unless the country gets partitioned. And ultimately, the desire of both the leaders fulfilled with the partition of India. Had any one of them dropped his will, the country might not have the bleeding wounds of partition and the communal riots afterwards. Jinnah expressed his desire before the Congress but, Jawaharlal Nehru fueled the already burning issues between the Muslim League and the Congress by saying that he will not accept Jinnah even as a ‘peon under his cabinet minister!’ So, if anyone is responsible for the partition, it should be Nehru not Gandhi. Gandhi was the one, who was against the partition and even had a fast opposing the same, but unfortunately, he didn’t succeed and one-third of Hindustan became foreign to us as Pakistan as stated by Godse in his address.
For a person who boasted of being an admirer of secularism and being against untouchability, killing Gandhi on the basis of his wrong perception of him being a favorer of Muslims, seems contradictory, doesn’t it! But, must say, he had a short political carrier, was a follower of the ideas of some of the legends of the country including Swami Vivekanand, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naroji and even Mahatma Gandhi. So, the difference in opinion, was the reason for Gandhiji’s killing.
I must say, what he thought, he very clearly explained and those who got fond of his words should bear in mind the work done by the great man Mahatma Gandhi.

‘WHY I KILLED GANDHI!’- Nathuram Godse's Address to the Court.

Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, based on a F.I.R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police Station at Delhi. The trial, which was held in camera, began on May27, 1948 and concluded on February10, 1949. He was sentenced to death.
An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by N. Godse before the Court on the May5, 1949.
Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote, “I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought a verdict of ‘not Guilty’ by an overwhelming majority!”

"Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up, I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.
I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France , America and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores(300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and program, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.
In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita[In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way.
Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.
Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi, but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India.
His ‘blind followers’, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.
From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League member’s right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian Territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.
Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls ‘freedom’ and ‘peaceful transfer of power’. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called ‘freedom won by them with sacrifice’ – whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country – which we consider a deity of worship – my mind was filled with direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.
Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the ‘Father of Pakistan.’ His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence, of which so much is made of, crumbled before Jinnah’s iron will and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building.
After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favorable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preaching and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi’s persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But, I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.”


01 December, 2011

'Corruption in India'... or 'India in Corruption'!

Corruption, in the last few years one has heard this name so many times that even a child can explain it with examples(... :)..), what it is! This is unfortunate that after more than 60 years of independence, we find ourselves nowhere. On the other hand, our neighbor China is developing with a high rate. Indeed, comparing our development with the communist country is not fare as our concept of democracy has haunted us when it comes to development. But, you might have heard the story of the Rabbit and the Tortoise in which the Tortoise in-spite of being slow wins the race. But, mind you, this is not going to happen in our case.
'Our failure have come less from ideology and more from poor management'. India is always considered to be a country of nice and sweet people who will offer their other cheek if you slap one. This is our ideology, the thoughts we have got from our ancestors. The corruption in the country has witnessed a heavy toll in the past two-three years, thanks to the scams coming under the heading one after the other. The scales of these scams were even bigger. The CWG scam, the Adarsh Housing scam, the IPL auction scrutiny, all have helped in the country's creep in position in the World's Most Corrupt nations. I mentioned the name of one of our neighboring countries, China. There are allegations that the corruption there is even higher than ours, but the communist party there has the power to demolish the voices against them. The Anna Hazare's reform indulged the youth of the country via social networking sites. The editorials in the newspapers, the blogs on the internet, the coverage on the television, all helped the reform to reach to the hearts of the common man and the huge support the reform got made the Govt. realize the power of the common man, the AAM AADMI!
In China, people do not reserve the right to raise their voice against the Govt. They have banned many social networking websites just to make sure that such a reform(Anna Hazare's Reform) do not happen in their country. This is not good, is it?
The Jan Lokpal Bill, or simply the Lokpal Bill can well be a start to our fight against corruption. But, the politicians reserve the right to implement the law. Many of them are found guilty of having some undisclosed properties and even having money deposits in their accounts in the tax havens. Will they ('they' here stands for those guilty leaders, not all), pass the bill and this way hit the axe on their own foot.


Anna Hazare, a retired soldier and a social reformer now, is the name that took almost every Indian to come out of their houses and do the dew for the country. This 74 year old led the fight or rather a Gandhian Fight to make the Govt. take steps against the Corruption going on in the country.
Today, if we look at our own lives, the corruption is a part and parcel of it. To get a job, to get a way by loading the Traffic Officer, even to buy a LPG cylinder we give the Bribe. Indeed, LOKPAL BILL is not going to heal every injury to our system, but it is a step forward none the less.
On 5 April, 2011, Anna started or rather took a step on a national level and did the fast asking the Govt. to pass the bill. His Civil Society made a draft for the bill as well, and must say, if the Govt. takes then initiative of passing the same Jan Lokpal Bill( making some changes if needed be) then it will be a great step forward. The first time, the Kapil Sibal and Co. entangled the Civil Society in the Standing Committees and all. But, Anna had the determination to take the Govt. one on one.
On 16 August, 2011 the Govt. again came under the hammer when Anna started the fast on a higher level than the previous one. See, the followers he have, may not be aware of what they are fighting for, but they know one thing that the Lokpal Bill is good for the system and for them. The scams which came under the heading last year have made the common man frustrated as the money looted belongs to the exchequer.
Now, the debate going on is JAN LOKPAL BILL vs GOVT. LOKPAL BILL. If I speak in an unbiased manner then the Anna's Bill is somewhere down the line impractical whereas the Govts' bill is seen as a assistance to Corruption. The main points of dispute were, rather are:
1. Keeping the PM out of the Lokpal. This is the hottest topic of the debate. Keeping the PM out of the bill will be a relief to the PM Office, as some key decisions for the future of the country are made there. If the PM is included in the Lokpal, then every decision of his and his office could come under the hammer, as there will always be a few who will disagree the decisions of his. And in case of the key decisions such as war and emergencies, the panic will only get a hype if some one raises his/her voice against the decision. I accept, PM has himself agreed to get himself in the Jurisdiction of the bill, but, I think, If I were the PM I would have done the same.
2. In the Govt.s' Bill, there is a provision of punishment for the person who falsely admits a complaint. A two to five is imprisonment is provisioned. But in Jan Lokpal Bill, there is a fine provisioned and a warning only. So, a blend is also needed in this regard, as anyone who raises a false complaint can not be just let off.
3. On the issue of judiciary being kept out of the Lokpal, the Govt. has an opinion of keeping it out of the purview of the Bill. They have a point of keeping it in Judicial Accountability Bill (JAB), and if a complaint is registered against a Judge then a three member committee (two judges from the same court and a retired Chief Justice of the same court). Don't know what the Govt. thought before making such a peculiar point that the inquiry will be done by the judge's staff members.
4. The point which I think the common man will welcome the most is the 'Citizen Charter'. Under this, if there an officer doesn't do citizen's work in a prescribed time, then he/she should be penalized. The Govt. thinks different on this point and have a thought of no penalization. An interesting thing on this point is that the Govt. first agreed to this demand of the Civil Society on 23 May, 2011 and then they refused to accept it afterwards.
5. According to the Govt. the CBI should remain in its hold and the Civil Society want its Anti-corruption unit to be under Lokpal. The CBI being under the Govt. questions the unbiased nature of the same.
Recently, the Govt. accepted the demand to pass the bill in the Parliament and the three points on which the consensus was not happening. And, on 27 August, 2011 the three points raised by the Civil Society were accepted by the Govt. and the opposition by Voice Voting. This is seen as a success for Anna & Co. But, the language of the issued notice of the Govt, to the Standing Committee is an issue to be seen. The Govt. used the wording that they will recommend the Standing Committee to 'SERIOUSLY CONSIDER' the three points. What this mean?

Well, must say, this is a historic event that defined the meaning of Democracy appropriately. Democracy doesn't mean electing a leader and then the leader doesn't look after his people for the next five year. A Leader is a representative of his people who have elected him. And if his electors want something to happen, this is his duty to consider their demands. Anna has given the Common Man of this country a believe that they have elected the leaders and they have the power to oppose their doings and make them hear their demands.
The people who supported Anna Hazare wore an old fashioned cap and there was a line written on those caps, 'I AM ANNA'! This means a lot. It assures the 74 year old reformer that he is not alone fighting for the sake of 'their' country, but they all support him.
I say with pride, I SUPPORT ANNA HAZARE!

Creative Commons License
frankspot by Gopal Sharma is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 India License.