WHY I SUPPORT THE ANNA MOVEMENT, BUT NOT HIS DEMANDS

‘Yes, we can’, this caption coined by Obama during his election campaign in 2008 for the U.S.presidential election caught the imagination of the country. And the end result was that not only did Obama win the election but won it comprehensively.

Three years later, a similar anthem is buzzing across all the major URBAN centres in the world’s biggest democracy. ‘Karengey, ya Marengay’ is the caption that is been played across the streets.

But are the two campaigns similar? On the face of it yes, they are the same, but the substance and texture are completely different.

First let’s talk about the similarities.

Obama & Anna both are underdogs fighting against the system.

In Obama’s case, a black man with no political or affluent moorings took on the system and garnered mass support to overhaul the system.

Anna on the other hand again is a simple Gandhian, who stays in a temple, has no wealth or property, with no corporate or political backing and is fighting the battle against the all powerful & mighty establishment.

Both are charismatic personalities that can woo the masses .Both took up issues that worry the common man. Both are effective communicators who seemed to have mastered the art of handling the media which in effect reaches out to a larger audience.

The media loves underdogs and it’s no surprise that in these cases they have the full support of the media.

But inspite of so many similarities there is one glaring difference between the two men.
Obama took on the system by being part of the system (political system), while Anna is taking on the system by staying out of it.

Obama’s appeal inspired his supporters to go out and cast their vote for him which translated in to him becoming the President of United States of America.This support empowered him to become the legitimate people’s representative who could take up their causes within the ambit of the constitution and bring in laws that would fundamentally bring about change in a common American’s life.

Anna on the other hand represents a section of the civil society. He is primarily an urban, middle class icon who has taken on a popular cause which has been haunting the country for the last 65 years.

Yes, corruption is an issue in the villages as well, but how many are aware of Anna’s movement? Not to forget that majority of Anna’s supporters are people who do not vote.

I totally support Anna’s movement – when he says it is a ‘Fight against corruption’. But I do not support his demand that he will fast till his ‘version of the Jan Lokpal Bill’ is passed

Anna has all the rights to protest against the establishment for not doing enough to eradicate corruption, but to blackmail that it’s ‘his way or the highway’ is not correct.

Majority of his supporters on the streets do not know the details of the Jan Lokpal bill. And these people are a' part' of the total population. By no means can we assume that they represent the majorty’s view.

As I mentioned earlier, the cause Anna is standing for is absolutely correct and the majority support him, but to say that his version of the lokpal bill is the best cannot be accepted.

Anna is not an elected people’s representative. No matter how much we argue or protest, the fact remains that the parliament is the supreme institution of democracy. The parliament is elected by the people who may or may not agree with his draft of the Lokpal bill. MPs are legitimate, elected representatives of the people. They maybe corrupt, dishonest, selfish, whatever it is, but they have been elected by the people.

This demand of Anna completely undermines the constitution which is the strongest pillar of our democracy.

Anna is an icon which this country has desperately been seeking for a long time. For a country where movie stars & sportsmen are the biggest icons for the youth, Anna is a fresh change, a real hero who inspires people.He represents the popular sentiment of the people but that does not give him the right to question the validity of the 552 individuals in the parliament who have been elected by the people across the length and breadth of this country.

Anna’s bill should be tabled through the parliament. It should be debated & fine tuned. Instead of asking the people to fast till his ‘version’of the bill is not accepted, he should ask the same people to protest till their MPs do not engage them in the process of drafting the bill and go to the parliament with their view points for a strong Jan Lokpal bill which will help address the root cause of corruption.

The Anna movement is like a flashback of the movie Rang De Basanti. In the movie the protagonists kill the corrupt minister to avenge the death of their pilot friend. But that didn’t kill corruption.

Similarly we don’t need to kill the political system, but cure it. And the best way to fight corruption and in this case of the Jan Lokpal bill is to get educated & educate others about the bill and push our elected members to pass a strong anti-corruption bill.

The Jan Lokpal bill is a strong instrument that will help us fight and eliminate corruption. But to believe that this alone will eradicate corruption is too simplistic. The battle is against corruption which is a much broader issue. We cannot make this a single point issue. And if we do then we may end up winning this battle but surely not this war.

OBAMA’S VISIT: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR INDIA

The Obamas have danced their way in to the hearts of normal, average, middle class Indians. Their grace, humility & affection seemed genuine and all these traits are weakness of an average India. Obama’s speech to the parliament will without an element of doubt go down as one of the most historic speeches ever and this trip may well redefine the US-India relationship.

But many skeptics still believe that United States has gained more from this trip and India has got carried away BY Obama’s kind words. Some cynics feel that the United States showed the UNSC carrot and India gave in. So has India really got carried away? The answer is simply ‘no’.

The trip has three broad features which I shall discuss one by one.
Economic & trade partnership- Skeptics believe that this trip was largely about businesses deals which will benefit United States and India has nothing to gain. Now looking at job creations in the United States through the $10 billion business deals is just one side of the story. Primarily India is paying to get access to technology in multiple sectors which so essential to keep the brisk growth rate of India’s economy on track. United States has an edge when it comes to technology and India is simply going to benefit by getting access to it. Partnership in areas like energy, defence, space, agriculture & manufacturing will bolster the capability & capacity of Indian companies which in turn will also create more employment in India & enhance our GDP growth. And if these partnership are utilized to its fullest potential than India can also touch 10% GDP growth from the current 8% growth. India needs the expertise in areas like agriculture which employs more than half the population and could also help in creating another green revolution which could do wonders for our agriculture sector.

Till now the US had restricted technology transfer to India but with post this trip US will lift those restrictions. With India getting access to technology especially in areas like agriculture, space, defence & infrastructure will only enhance our growth rate as mentioned earlier.

Now many critics say that there was no need to buy defense equipments from the United States given that we can get better deals from Russia & France. India’s increased defense purchase from United States doesn’t mean that it will stop buying from other countries. Russia is still India biggest defense supplier followed by Israel. United States traditionally had a very small pie in the Indian defense segment. And there should not be any fear of not getting access to the defense technology in the future because that will hurt US companies much more. This is something which the United States realized during the recession.

The Pakistan issue- To expect United States to impose sanctions or take some ultra tough measures against Pakistan for not acting against the perpetrators of 26/11 is not going happen. For United States priority is Afghanistan and for that it needs the support of Pakistan. And any direct involvement of the US in eliminating terror groups in Pakistan may also lead to a back lash and jeopardise US’s Afghan-Pak strategy. But on the first two days of the trip Obama did not mince any words against Pakistan for the 26/11 which also drew huge criticism.But it was on the last day that Obama said it a loud in the parliament speech that Pakistan will have to bring the culprits of 26/11 to book. As Swaminathan Aiyer put is across- US’s strategy is very clear. For the short term its Pakistan and in the long term it’s India. Obama also made it clear that it will not interfere in the Kashmir dispute and will leave it to India & Pakistan to sort out the issue something which India has been saying all this while.

Support for UNSC seat- Well, this was in the offing for a long time. Even the permanent members on the UNSC realize that there is a need to reform the United Nation’s Security Council based on today’s world order. India’s economic clout, growing influence on global issues, strong democratic track record & contribution to peace keeping efforts makes it’s a strong & deserving candidate to claim a permanent seat on the security council. China’s growing influence & uncertain behaviour is a cause of concern for the United States & Europe. In order to keep a balance India’s elevation is imperative to keep this region stable. With four out five permanent members already supporting India’s candidature including the United States, India chances look bright. Though China will try to create obstacles but that would be a real test of India’s diplomatic mettle. And the reform of the UNSC itself might take a few more years.

Many people also skeptical that India’s growing closeness to United States will drift it away from its old friend –Russia. This is not true. The cold war era is completely over and the fall of the Soviet Union also dismantled the bipolar world order. India’s relationship with Russia will & should continue to remain strong. India would need the support of both these nations to realize its true potential which is essential for this region. Obama’s endorsement should not be seen just lip service but an articulation of India true position in this century. As Obama put it- that India is not emerging, it has emerged.