http://www.indianexpress.com/
Sat, 18 Jun 2011
Many crucial bills have been written with activist's inputs. Why discredit Anna's efforts?
Shazia Ilmi
Tags : shazia ilmi, columnist indian express, indian express oped, Don’t call this blackmail
Posted: Sat Jun 18 2011, 03:52 hrs
There is a rather uncivil campaign afoot to discredit the role of “civil society” in co-authoring the Lokpal bill draft. While some serious commentators and members of the NAC have pointed out reasonable doubts and genuine misgivings, the bulk of the criticism has been centred on a series of platitudes and banalities based on the supposed “lack of legitimacy” of the civil society members themselves.
When Anna Hazare reminds everyone that the people are sovereign, the argument thrown back is that this “unelected tyrant” is taking on the democratically-elected representatives of the people. This deliberate attempt to use the very essence of democracy against itself is disturbing.
If being elected or not elected is the question, then one must remember that our prime minister lost the only election he fought, that some Union ministers have lost more elections than they have won — some having won only one election and some none at all — and that most of the members of the Planning Commission and now the NAC are unelected. Some of the biggest players in Indian politics hail from the Rajya Sabha. I’m sure Anna Hazare, Santosh Hegde and Prashant Bhushan could match the lofty credentials of at least some of the esteemed members of the upper house — and, if RS members can deliberate over the prospects and processes of a bill journey’s into enactment, why can’t civil society members participate pro-actively in the process?
Another oft repeated argument is that elections are a great leveller. Yet look at people’s choices: between Mulayam Singh and Mayawati in UP, Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, Madhu Koda and Shibu Soren in Jharkhand. People don’t really experience more honest governance. And while the financially compromised B.S. Yeddyurappa government of Karnataka and that of morally compromised Narendra Modi in Gujarat can quote electoral numbers to cite their political legitimacy, it is the pressure of some citizen groups that prevent them from claiming universal acceptance and “moral legitimacy”. Those who challenge the moral authority of civil society members must be warned that the same question can be asked of them, when they question an Amit Shah or a Madhu Koda.
Money, sycophancy, nepotism and self-serving interests have choked all pathways of our electoral processes, from tickets to portfolio allocation. Then why, pray, should we citizens outsource our right to ask questions and seek answers to our elected leaders?
One puerile argument being bandied about is that the government should not have hobnobbed with non-state actors from the outset. If so, how will this or any other government explain why they ever had any dialogue with Syed Ali Shah Geelani? Why did Rajiv Gandhi sign the Assam Accord with the agitating All Assam Students Union in 1985, for it was only after the accord was signed that their members formed the Asom Gana Parishad and blended into the electoral canvas? Why did the Indian government engage with Laldenga in 1986 when he had fought a secessionist war against the state?
I wonder what those who castigate Anna Hazare and his ilk as hunger-striking blackmailers would call Potti Sreeramulu, who fasted for Andhra Pradesh’s statehood in 1952. He died on March 16; the news spread like wildfire and created a mass uproar. On December 19 that year, Jawaharlal Nehru announced the formation of a separate Andhra state.
If peaceful assembly and street agitation in order to express outrage or discontent against any existing practice or system is termed as blackmailing the government, then we might as well cease to call ourselves a democracy. Team Anna might have demonstrated a novel approach to pre-legislative debate and drafting but the fact of the matter is that all bills presented in Parliament are made with the national and state level consultation by government officers of civil society groups, NGOs and stakeholders.
The much-delayed Womens Reservation bill was backed by more than 35 women’s organisations which put pressure on parliamentarians to pass it in the Rajya Sabha. Aruna Roy, Sandeep Pandey and Arvind Kejriwal gave up brilliant and profitable careers not to get elected, but to lead campaigns for the RTI and the NREGA. Academic and activist Madhu Kishwar has helped formulate state policy for rickshaw-pullers, street vendors and hawkers, and says people’s movements are an inherent part of democracy and serve to strenghthen it.
The government can either dampen the prospects of this nation by presenting a watered-down version of the Lokpal bill in the monsoon session, or be on the right side of history forever by taking credit for it, in what would be the watershed moment for the world’s largest democracy, and its biggest battle so far.
The writer is an independent mediaperson and is associated with the Anna Hazare-led ‘India Against Corruption’
Sat, 18 Jun 2011
Don’t call this blackmail
Many crucial bills have been written with activist's inputs. Why discredit Anna's efforts?
Shazia Ilmi
Tags : shazia ilmi, columnist indian express, indian express oped, Don’t call this blackmail
Posted: Sat Jun 18 2011, 03:52 hrs
There is a rather uncivil campaign afoot to discredit the role of “civil society” in co-authoring the Lokpal bill draft. While some serious commentators and members of the NAC have pointed out reasonable doubts and genuine misgivings, the bulk of the criticism has been centred on a series of platitudes and banalities based on the supposed “lack of legitimacy” of the civil society members themselves.
When Anna Hazare reminds everyone that the people are sovereign, the argument thrown back is that this “unelected tyrant” is taking on the democratically-elected representatives of the people. This deliberate attempt to use the very essence of democracy against itself is disturbing.
If being elected or not elected is the question, then one must remember that our prime minister lost the only election he fought, that some Union ministers have lost more elections than they have won — some having won only one election and some none at all — and that most of the members of the Planning Commission and now the NAC are unelected. Some of the biggest players in Indian politics hail from the Rajya Sabha. I’m sure Anna Hazare, Santosh Hegde and Prashant Bhushan could match the lofty credentials of at least some of the esteemed members of the upper house — and, if RS members can deliberate over the prospects and processes of a bill journey’s into enactment, why can’t civil society members participate pro-actively in the process?
Another oft repeated argument is that elections are a great leveller. Yet look at people’s choices: between Mulayam Singh and Mayawati in UP, Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, Madhu Koda and Shibu Soren in Jharkhand. People don’t really experience more honest governance. And while the financially compromised B.S. Yeddyurappa government of Karnataka and that of morally compromised Narendra Modi in Gujarat can quote electoral numbers to cite their political legitimacy, it is the pressure of some citizen groups that prevent them from claiming universal acceptance and “moral legitimacy”. Those who challenge the moral authority of civil society members must be warned that the same question can be asked of them, when they question an Amit Shah or a Madhu Koda.
Money, sycophancy, nepotism and self-serving interests have choked all pathways of our electoral processes, from tickets to portfolio allocation. Then why, pray, should we citizens outsource our right to ask questions and seek answers to our elected leaders?
One puerile argument being bandied about is that the government should not have hobnobbed with non-state actors from the outset. If so, how will this or any other government explain why they ever had any dialogue with Syed Ali Shah Geelani? Why did Rajiv Gandhi sign the Assam Accord with the agitating All Assam Students Union in 1985, for it was only after the accord was signed that their members formed the Asom Gana Parishad and blended into the electoral canvas? Why did the Indian government engage with Laldenga in 1986 when he had fought a secessionist war against the state?
I wonder what those who castigate Anna Hazare and his ilk as hunger-striking blackmailers would call Potti Sreeramulu, who fasted for Andhra Pradesh’s statehood in 1952. He died on March 16; the news spread like wildfire and created a mass uproar. On December 19 that year, Jawaharlal Nehru announced the formation of a separate Andhra state.
If peaceful assembly and street agitation in order to express outrage or discontent against any existing practice or system is termed as blackmailing the government, then we might as well cease to call ourselves a democracy. Team Anna might have demonstrated a novel approach to pre-legislative debate and drafting but the fact of the matter is that all bills presented in Parliament are made with the national and state level consultation by government officers of civil society groups, NGOs and stakeholders.
The much-delayed Womens Reservation bill was backed by more than 35 women’s organisations which put pressure on parliamentarians to pass it in the Rajya Sabha. Aruna Roy, Sandeep Pandey and Arvind Kejriwal gave up brilliant and profitable careers not to get elected, but to lead campaigns for the RTI and the NREGA. Academic and activist Madhu Kishwar has helped formulate state policy for rickshaw-pullers, street vendors and hawkers, and says people’s movements are an inherent part of democracy and serve to strenghthen it.
The government can either dampen the prospects of this nation by presenting a watered-down version of the Lokpal bill in the monsoon session, or be on the right side of history forever by taking credit for it, in what would be the watershed moment for the world’s largest democracy, and its biggest battle so far.
The writer is an independent mediaperson and is associated with the Anna Hazare-led ‘India Against Corruption’
Looking at the sequence of events from disregarding civil society members for drafting the bill, then including them in April and then after failing to discredit them, the government has ultimately started to hold parlays with the rights activists. I firmly believe it is yet another tactic to subdue the Jan Lokpal Bill. My argument is based on the fact that a third of Lok Sabha members have criminal charges pending against them and my guess is not even a third MPs are credible. Irrespective of the political party, no one wants this bill to be enacted. Arvind Kejriwal had articulated this few months ago that MPs will commit political suicide if they pass this bill.
ReplyDeleteAfter a long time this movement has has given a ray of hope for people who have had to endure corruption and in many cases begun to accept it as a part of life. I am optimistic that this awareness will spread to all sections of society and vote out individuals with dubious backgrounds and force the government to enact the Jan Lokpal bill.
Gandhi himself never fought an election !
ReplyDelete