Think... before you 'Support Anna Hazare'

Over the last couple of days, it seems like everyone has decided to 'support Anna Hazare'. I find myself in a very small minority who do not want to support Anna Hazare. Let me explain why, and hope you will think this through as well.

What exactly is happening here? Anna wants his version of the Jan Lokpal Bill to be implemented. No problem so far. Anna wants to fast unto death in New Delhi if this doesn't happen. This is a problem. Fasting unto death is not permissible by law, because it effectively becomes suicide - which is not permitted by law.

Moreover, this method of protest is unconstitutional. I quote none other than BR Ambedkar here:

"If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us."

People are saying Anna is being denied his democratic right. That's Bullshit. He was never denied permission to protest - and that's all his democratic rights are.

He does NOT have a right to fast unto death. He also does not have unlimited rights to protest anywhere he wants, for any duration of time, and with any number of people. It is a free country, but freedom does not mean you have an unconditional right to do absolutely anything you please - you have to behave in a responsible manner. By refusing to comply with any conditions whatsoever, Anna is not trying to exercise rights that exist, he is simply breaking the law. It is especially ironical that he is breaking the law, to achieve the objective to getting his Jan Lokpal Bill being included in ... the law! This is sheer hypocrisy. And, everyone is supporting this?!

Anyway, let us ignore for a moment the fact that it is illegal, and consider the reality that most people want him to be allowed to carry on with his fast unconditionally. What happens then? The government either lets him die (which they can't, realistically), or submits to his demands about all aspects of the Lokpal Bill. What will this mean? The government - which is properly elected by the majority of the people of India through free, fair elections - will not have the final say when it comes to making laws. Law could be dictated - through blackmail - by any individual or group that seems to have 'popular support'.

This issue is not about the contents of the Bill. The issue is - who has decision-making authority? The government has a formal mandate from the People of India, and operates within the law. Anna Hazare does not draw his power from any formal, organized process, and is not accountable for his actions or their consequences to anyone, through any mechanism. Can he allowed to over-rule the government? Once the precedent is set, who is to say it will not happen again, or be misused? Do we really want to weaken the parliamentary system that is the very cornerstone of our democracy? Who takes responsibility for the consequences?

The media is calling the government's actions 'murder or democracy'. But actually it is Anna who is trying to subvert the democratic process. They are likening him to Gandhi. Gandhi fought for the freedom and dignity of all Indian people. Anna is only being stubborn about his version of the Bill. Gandhi was always willing to have constructive discussions with the Govt of the day. Anna is not - he just wants to dictate terms. Finally, Gandhi fought against foreign rule that was against the wishes of the Indian people. Anna is fighting a govt. elected by the people of India. Likening Anna to Gandhi is absolute nonsense.

I understand the people are frustrated and want to make a stand against corruption. But this has to be done in a proper, thought-out manner and will take a lot of time and concerted effort to achieve results. Taking to the streets shouting slogans in support of Hazare and his methods is NOT the solution.

Let's now consider the root cause of this whole thing - the Jan Lokpal Bill and the contentious issues. The myth being perpetrated is that a new institution, with the PM and MPs under it's ambit is going to be some sort of panacea against corruption. And getting the PM and MPs and the Judiciary included with the Lokpal's ambit is a cause great enough to court arrest and die for.

Horseshit. Corruption is not limited to a few hundred politicians. In a broad sense, it encompasses anyone doing something 'wrong' for personal gain. Anyone can be corrupt, and the truth is that most people are. To really reduce corruption - all of us need to have much stronger civic sense and value systems. In a country where most people don't respect queues, and votes can be purchased by offering a saree, a color TV, or some such little incentive - fighting over whether the Lokpal covers the PM and MPs is a matter of mistaken priorities.

Dealing with corruption, in any case, has never been about setting up institutions - it has been driven by the integrity of a few good men. TN Seshan did of lot of cleaning up of the electoral system. How many other election commissioners can you name? Santosh Hegde brought down a Chief Minister and took brought other ministers to the law. How many Lokayuktas - before or after him - in Karnataka or other states - can you name? Anna Hazare & India Against Corruption itself are not institutions, they're just people with integrity. Good people don't need designations to do good work. And designations or institutions don't guarantee good work either.

The CBI has - in the past - unearthed various scams and punished the guilty. The CVC - another authority - has in the recent past investigated the 2G scam, the Commonwealth Games and so on. Maybe having one more institution - the Lokpal - will help, but it is NOT a one-shot solution to the corruption problem. Unless it has the right people, it will become as ineffective as all other bodies.

Another major bone of contention is whether or not the Judiciary should be within the ambit of the Lokpal. And here I disagree with Anna - I feel it shouldn't. The Judiciary is - at least on paper - independent, impartial, and comprises men of the highest integrity - all the things that the Lokpal is supposed to be. Why, then, should we not trust them, and trust the Lokpal more? An independent judiciary is an imperative for any sovereign democracy. If we are going to be cynical about them too, why not the Lokpal then? Where do we draw the line? The challenge is ensuring that the existing bodies work the way they are supposed to. Creating new bodies is not the solution.

But then - I forgot - I don't have a right to disagree with Anna. He's on a fast unto death. Everyone must accept his Bill as is, or go flash yourself. Democracy, discussion et al be damned.

Lastly - I am going to question the man himself. Anna does not seem to have any faith in our institutions, and wants to use methods that are not permitted by the law. And his aim is to pass a law to create an institution. Am I the only one who sees the inherent contradiction here? Should we really pose so much faith in a man who own actions seem to be contradicting the very ideals he's ostensibly fighting for? He may be a good man, but is he qualified to do what he's trying to?

Also the TV channels are screaming themselves hoarse 'Why can't the govt. let a 70 year old man fast in peace?', portraying Anna as a harmless, innocent victim. Then they play the video message where he uses rhetoric such as 'second freedom struggle', and exhorts everyone to court arrest. This message is very provocative, and the fact that it was recorded well before his arrest, proves that there was a lot of planning & premeditation. Hardly consistent with the 'harmless, innocent, old man' image the media is trying to portray.

Sadly, people like Dr. Subramanyam Swamy, who do real good like taking the 2G case to court, receive little support from the media. Perhaps because Dr. Swamy - a Harvard professor who offers cold, hard logical arguments rather than the ill-considered, emotional rhetoric of Anna Hazare or Baba Ramdev - simply doesn't sell with Indian TV audiences. The media would rather show you an interview with a teenage boy who's bunked school to join the 'support Anna movement' - because it resonates well with their story about how 'all of India is with Anna' - even though the kid isn't possibly qualified to understand all the complex issues involved here, and should really be told to go back and attend school. They won't tell you about Takhat Singh Ranawat - a batchmate of mine from IIT Madras, who joined the IFS and was one of the 5 officers on the Lokayukta team that prepared the report on illegal mining - because he's actually doing good work, and his story won't feed the emotional frenzy that gets TRPs like Anna does.

So, the next time you are asked to click a button, or go out and carry a candle to show your support for Anna Hazare, just think twice.

Response to most common comments etc.  in followup post here.