Is he the next Gandhi?

Technically, all articles should start with an introduction of the issue. It's 6 AM, I haven't slept the whole night and am justifiably devoid of the patience to delve in to the background. So if you don't know the background already, please don't waste your time here.

Like 'Team Anna' has been claiming, there are many similarities between the two. Both are fasting to achieve something which the govt. of their respective times reluctant to gift-wrap and present to them. Both had a strong resume of social services before catching the nation's imagination. While Anna turned a poor village in to a model one, Gandhi did something similar during the time he spent in South Africa. Both took the route of non-violence to make their voices heard. And finally, both managed to get the rulers agree to their demands.

Small aberration that Anna actually beat up the youth in Ralegan Siddhi to set them straight. Well, you cannot preach to the hungry. Hence the use of force is justifiable to my mind. Adding to that, nobody would change their way of life for a fasting stranger. He resorted to more civil ways once he got the support of masses. And now when the hour of reckoning arrives, Anna is the poster-boy of the civil society. Lesson in strategy here.

Moving on to the present, the devil of a govt. has relented, Anna has his way and everything is sunshine and roses for India. Hail the new Gandhi.

If only he was not so much like Gandhi or Gandhi was as perfect as he's made out to be. Let's not talk about the Lokpal Bill for the time being. It has already been scanned and dissected more that those poor frogs in biology classes. Let's talk about the Satyagrahi power.

Now Gandhi, during his time, was the ultimate decision-maker in India. I would go as far as saying that he was a dictator for the little amount of time he lived in independent India. Every bill the parliament passed, every resolution the govt. undertook had to receive a nod by him. And if he deemed it wrong or unfair, it wouldn't see the light of day.

Read history deep enough and you will find many fundamental blunders made by the state of India and quite a few originated from one man-Gandhi. In case the ministers protested, he would use his ultimate weapon - threat of a fast. That's how Pakistan got their 40 crores at the time of partition. He was the father of the nation and the big daddy of Congress.

Now this created problems back then, as it does now. Without doubting the integrity and intentions of either, it is highly improbable that one man, that too those with a deeply ingrained sense of fairness, can do what's best for a nation. A saint can never run a grocery shop.

Gandhi used to say "A Satyagrahi always knows the right way." And it was only he who could judge all the qualities, the IQ or the fashion sense of an ideal Satyagrahi. It is more or less the same story 60 years later. Anna decides the members of the Civil Society, the date of enforcement for the bill and even the content of the same. For argument's sake, let's suppose we give Team Anna a free hand for drafting the bill. Now say, Kejriwal disagrees with Anna on some parts of it. What next? I can bet my oversized, overweight arse that Anna will force him out of the committee or threaten to on another hunger strike.

Not judging the JLP, but it is disturbing that we let one man enjoy so much power and but still strip with joy, blowing the trumpet of being the largest democracy.

The Bill

Before the respected Anna Hazare made that very public and widely publicised visit to Delhi, I had no clue about the Lokpal bill, like many others, I might add. He then staged a fast to get his voice heard and forced the government to include members of the 'civil' society in drafting the bill. The masses were behind him and he won.

The real problems arose when the government refused to accept some of his committee's suggestions to be included in the bill. (You could google for the major PoDs in the Jan Lokpal Bill, as it is popularly known, and the government's draft.) Angered by the government's lack of cooperation he and his team is up in arms against the high and mighty once again.

The bone of discontent seems to be the difference in scope of the two bills. The JLP tries to hold everyone, including the PM accountable while the government bill is content with being a watchdog for senior level officials. While I agree with the JLP on most issues, there are some points about the whole situation that worry me.

The first is sustainability. It is all based on the assumption that the members of the Lokpal committee will be clean as a whistle. In fact, the 1st committee might even be so just like the politicians in the 50s. But later on the power that the position grants them, is bound to corrupt some and may be all. Also, the assumption that the lokpal committee will be independent of political influence is far-fetched. It is India after all. Nothing is free from political influence here. And if the committee happens to be hand-in-glove with the government, it is as good as useless.

The other problem is the motive of the masses showing such solidarity. They are all against corruption no doubt but only when someone else does it. I don't think any of those supporters will think twice before greasing the palms of a traffic cops when they are caught jumping a signal. It is the always easier way out. To them, this is not a movement against corruption as such but only against the corrupt politicians. They are fine as long as the neighborhood ration-shop owner conveniently accepts gifts.

However, if I had a choice between the two, I'd always choose the JLP but with a humble request to Anna: Please bring in some regulations to ensure the incorruptibility of Lokpal members and please do not think Indians are as averse to corruption as is visible.