Valentine's Day - Ten romantic songs from Hindi films

For someone who’s pretty crazy about old Hindi film songs, I’ve never posted a list here on any theme. I’ve only ever posted random songs as and when I felt like discussing them. And even these have been very occasional postings.

But I do read a few film blogs and they often have these “lists” – songs of a particular music director, songs in village fairs, songs in horse-driven carriages, and so on. I’ve always enjoyed these “list” posts – and added my bit in the comments sections of these blogs.

Today I felt like putting out a list of my own out there.And much like others place constraints on their lists, I have placed some on mine too. I find it more fun to make a list under constraints – while it might make the job more difficult on one hand, it actually helps in the song elimination process on the other.

My list is a list of soft, soulful, romantic songs where a male character is talking about, or talking to, a female character, describing her beauty and/or how much he loves her. In other words, something I know nothing about. ;-)

I know it sounds complicated, but I needed to do this to narrow down the type of song I'm considering here. Romantic songs come a dime a dozen in Hindi films, so I had to define some boundaries around them upfront. This means a song like “ehsaan tera hoga mujh par” (Junglee) does NOT make the cut. In fact, no “sad” song makes the cut.

Again, what’s soft, soulful and romantic can be a matter of debate. I used a simple rule for myself – would this be a song I’d consider singing to my love in my attempt to win her over? (Ok, ok, I know that ship sailed a long time ago ;-) but hey, this is just a lab experiment. J). If yes, then it qualifies to be considered.

Poetry has always been an integral part of my love for Hindi songs, so the songs I’ve picked had to be pretty high on the lyrics content. They didn’t need to use fancy Urdu words (which, btw, I absolutely love) but they needed to have something interesting in their lyrics. They needed to "talk" to me. I do recognize though that this is another subjective demand I’ve placed on my list.

Now, the clear-cut, indisputable constraints.

I’m limiting my list to one song per singer. That’s a massive tying of hands when you consider the number, and quality, of songs that get excluded just because ONE Kishore or Rafi song got picked. But that’s life. Ok, it isn’t but if life’s a bitch, so’s my list.

To add to the fun, I’ve decided to limit it to ONE song per music director. Much like the above singer restriction, that puts many beautiful songs out there in the cold (and my heart breaks at the thought) but I’m steeling myself.

I must be some sort of masochist because I wasn’t even satisfied with this level of tying of hands. I decided I'd restrict my songs to one-song-per-actor. So, Rajesh Khanna, for all his plethora of romantic songs, has no bigger bite at the apple than, say, a Raj Babbar.

And guess what? To make it even more interesting (or restrictive), I thought I’d limit it to one song per actress. So even favourites like Waheeda and Nutan are not favourites as far as this list is concerned.

Finally I added just one more restriction. Not that I have anything against female singers, but this would be an all-male list. If only because of the theme – it is the male praising the female, so even if the female so much as utters one word, the song is disqualified. Also, it would be a male solo, so duets like “huzoor is qadar bhi na ithra ke chaliye” are not allowed.

That’s it. I could have thought up a few more restrictions on myself but I thought this is a decent set to start with. To summarise:

1.       Soft, soulful, romantic song where the male character is describing the female character’s beauty or telling her how much he loves her

2.       High on quality of lyrics (subjective call, of course)

3.       One song per singer

4.       One song per music director

5.       One song per actor

6.       One song per actress

7.       Only male solos

I have also chosen to stay with a standard restriction that most impose on their lists – one song per film. With the thousands of films out there, it seems extremely unfair if one film were to grab more than one slot in a ten-song list.

The restrictions I have NOT imposed on myself (and I’ve seen on other lists) are (a) that I should have seen the movie and (b) period boundaries. My songs cover every decade from the 1950s to the 1990s.

I will admit, not much thought has gone into this list. In fact, this list is a result of my having a comfortable seat in a near-empty AC bus today enroute to another part of town. I had a piece of paper – and a pen – with me. Since it was Valentine’s Day, my thoughts meandered in the direction of romantic songs. One thing led to another, and soon I had ten songs on my list, satisfying these conditions. (The main reason there's no restriction of "one song per lyricist" is, on the bus journey I was very confident of singer/actor/actress/music composer but not so sure about the lyricist for each song. And I got my list pretty much ready on the bus journey itself).

Please let me know what you think of the list. And of course, your own suggestions are most welcome. For many songs, I could myself think of alternatives – but the constraints helped in the selection/elimination process.

Ok, that was a LONG build-up, but let’s now get down to the business end of this post. The songs are in chronological order.

1) Ye hawa ye raat ye chandni (Sangdil - 1952). Talat Mahmood’s voice, Rajinder Krishan’s lyrics, Sajjad Hussain’s composition. Song picturised on Dilip Kumar, for Madhubala.

Talat Mahmood, in his silken voice, has sung many a melodious number but this is one that I fell madly in love with the very first time I heard it. I think the lyrics were what bowled me over rightaway – “tujhe kya khabar hai o bekhabar, teri ek nazar mein hai kya asar, jo ghazab mein aaye to keher hai, jo ho meherbaan wo qaraar hai, mujhe kyon na ho teri aarzoo, teri justaju mein bahaar hai”. Considering it’s for Madhubala, I think the lyrics probably come quite naturally. ;-)

2) Ae mere pyare watan (Kabuliwala - 1961). Manna Dey’s voice, Prem Dhawan’s lyrics, Salil Chaudhary’s composition. Song picturised on Balraj Sahni, Wazir Mohd Khan (thank you, Arunkumar Deshmukhji for the correction) for his country.

Ok, here the song is not being sung to a female character as such, it is being sung to and about a person's homeland. This is a song I really , really, REALLY, love. It is soft, it is soulful, it is romantic (in the sense of a person’s love for his country), it has lovely lyrics, it has everything. So when I was thinking of a Manna Dey song, this immediately came to mind. And however hard I tried to think of another one (I did think of “kaun aaya” (Dekh Kabira Roya) and “ae meri zohra jabeen” (Waqt) but this Kabuliwala song beats them, in my opinion. When I listen to “sab se pyaari subah teri, sab se rangeen teri shaam, tujh pe dil qurbaan” (and the way Manna Dey has sung this) its effect on me cannot be described. Just to clarify, this song isn't being sung for India, it's being sung for his home country, Afghanistan. Actually it doesn't matter - at a generic level, it's a song of love for one's country. 

So maybe I’m cheating a bit here (and please feel free to find me another Manna Dey song that could replace this one) but I’m sticking with this for now.

(EDIT:  One of my friends, Ava, has come up with a Manna Dey romantic song that satisfies all my criteria. Not only is it is a lovely song, it is also more in line with the theme of this post than the song I picked above. I am therefore including it in this blogpost as an additional song (not removing "aye mere pyar vatan" - don't have the heart to!). The fact that Madan Mohan is the composer of this song delights me - I don't need to feel that guilt anymore for not finding a slot for him earlier. (I really wanted to have "main nigaahen tere chehre se" in here but my own rules worked against me on that one)).

Here's Ava's proposal slotted here as 2a). Thanks Ava.
2a)   Har taraf ab yehi afsaane hain (Hindustan Ki Kasam - 1973). Manna Dey's voice, Kaifi Azmi's lyrics, Madan Mohan's music. Song picturised on Raj Kumar, for Priya Rajvansh).

3) Tum agar mujhko na chaaho to koi baat nahin (Dil Hi To Hai - 1963). Mukesh’s voice, Sahir’s lyrics, Roshan’s music. Song picturised on Raj Kapoor, for Nutan.

This is a song I used to like a lot before I saw the movie. And then, I really fell in love with it. Before I saw the movie I had imagined this to be a serious, sad song where the hero is venting out his frustration at his failed love – the lyrics would suggest as much. But I discovered I was completely wrong – it is a light-hearted song, sung early in the movie at Nutan’s birthday party (at least I think it was her birthday party). Raj Kapoor has only recently met Nutan and he is flirting with her. And she is responding in her inimitable style.  

Ah, Nutan! This was the movie which made me fall madly in love with her (this, and Tere Ghar Ke Saamne and Paying Guest, all of which I saw within a week of each other). I SO love Nutan when she is not in her “mera pati mera devta hai” roles – and she is lovely in this film. I cannot have a romantic songs list without a Nutan number in it, so this is it. And can I see myself singing this song? Sure I can! Now to find a Nutan to sing it to. ;-) Or a Madhubala or Waheeda. ;-) 

4) Ye nayan darey darey (Kohraa - 1964). Hemant Kumar’s voice, Kaifi Azmi’s lyrics, Hemant Kumar’s own composition.  Song picturised on Biswajeet, for Waheeda Rehman.

This is another song that I consider very high on the soft, romantic scale – and even Biswajeet cannot spoil it for me. :-)  I was toying between this and “zara nazron se keh do ji” (Bees Saal Baad) but I thought Waheeda  Rehman is better picturised here, so this song won it. 

In fact, though this list is an all-male list, since the object of affection is female, she does play a role in influencing my choice of song.  The very presence of Waheeda is good enough reason for me to pick a song. Or a movie.

5) Tum agar saath dene ka waada karo (Humraaz - 1967). Mahendra Kapoor’s voice, Sahir’s lyrics, Ravi’s music. Song picturised on Sunil Dutt, for Vimi.

Between them, Humraaz and Gumraah have a whole host of soulful, romantic songs penned by Sahir 

Ludhianvi. Amongst them, this song perfectly fits my requirements – I love the lyrics in this song. “Main akela bahut der chalta raha, ab safar zindagani ka kat-ta nahin” has such a “real” sense about it! And no, it's NOT autobiographical. ;-) And then the praise “maine khwabon mein barson taraasha jise, tum wohi sangemarmar ki tasveer ho, tum na samjho tumhaara muqaddar hoon main, main samajhta hoon tum meri taqdeer ho”. Sahir’s always been right up there for me as a lyricist – and he absolutely nails it here for me. Very soulfully rendered by Mahendra Kapoor, I might add.

6) Ye jo chilman hai (Mehboob Ki Mehndi – 1971). Mohammad Rafi’s voice, Anand Bakshi’s lyrics, Laxmikant-Pyarelal’s music. Song picturised on Rajesh Khanna, for Leena Chandavarkar.

Some may be surprised that I picked this as my Rajesh Khanna romantic song pick. But I love, love, love everything about this song – and while it also means no other Rafi saab song gets picked, I just could not bring myself NOT to pick this one. Look at it – it’s just perfect. Rajesh Khanna is at his buttoned-kurta best, his mannerisms are just about right, not OTT (those were still early days for him), Leena Chandavarkar is oh-so-sweet, the typically Muslim setting is just beautiful – and the lovely lyrics by Anand Bakshi are beautifully given shape by LP. What’s not to love?

So move aside “o mere dil ke chain”, this one deserves its place in the sun. It’s been behind a chilman of its own for way too long.

7) Pal pal dil ke paas (Blackmail – 1973). Kishore Kumar’s voice, Rajinder Krishan’s lyrics, Kalyanji-Anandji’s music. Song picturised on Dharmendra, for Raakhee.

I think I might just have escaped the censure that was awaiting me all this while for being more than halfway down my list and not coming up with this one. For this is for many THE most iconic romantic song of them all. And I’m not putting this up here just to conform (heaven knows I’m no conformist!) – I really, really love this song. I know I say this about every song but I can’t help it.

This song has everything I’m looking for – soft, soulful lyrics, wonderfully composed by K-A and sung as only Kishore Kumar could. I’ve sung this song a million times – this is my favourite travel-cum-loneliness song, I tend to sing it A LOT. Years ago, when I would return from work by local train in Mumbai (Bombay) at the late hours of 1.30 or 2.00 a.m, this song would give me company. Everything about it is just perfect!

8) Tu is tarah se meri zindagi (Aap To Aise Na The – 1980). Manhar Udhas’ voice, Nida Fazli’s lyrics, Usha Khanna’s music. Song picturised on Raj Babbar, for Ranjeeta Kaur.

I remember that by the time 1980 came around, Hindi movies had begun to take a different path altogether. Those were the days of big-budget multi-starrers. Or Amitabh Bachchan towering over all others. Or South Indian producers coming back into Hindi films on the back of Jeetendra and Rekha.  Or it was disco. In all this, there was the occasional song – which had none of these frills - that stood out  purely on the strength of its melody.

One such song was “Tu is tarah”. The first time I heard it, I could not recognize the voice (Manhar). All I knew was that I fell madly in love with it. (Yes, I do tend to fall madly in love with a lot of things quite often J). It was a reasonably popular song (and had three versions of it), so it would play on radio quite often. Those were the days before the internet, so you couldn’t just google or youtube it. I used to wait to listen to this song.

As with all my other songs here, the lyrics of this song are just beautiful. I can listen to this song again and again (yes, I’ve listened to this too a million times) and never get bored. In a list of soulful, romantic songs, this song can proudly claim its place in my top-10 list.

9) Chhupaana bhi nahin aata (Baazigar – 1993). Vinod Rathod’s voice, Rani Malik’s lyrics, Anu Malik’s music. Though the song is sung by Vinod Rathod, it's effectively picturised on Siddharth, for Kajol.

This song might come as a surprise for many, but in a film with superhit songs, this is the one which is most often forgotten. I have always liked this song and I think it deserves to be better-known. And since I did not set any period constraints for my list – and this song satisfies all my required criteria – I have no qualms throwing it in here. 

The lyrics are actually quite good to listen to – I remember they impressed me quite a bit when I first heard the song. “Hatheli pe tumhaara naam, likhte hain mitaate hain, tum hi se pyar karte hain, tum hi se hi kyon chhupaate hain”. The travails of a guy unable to confess his love to the girl he loves. Been there, done that. (No, just kidding! ;-)). Writing on hatheli (palm) and all that. Sheesh! :-) Nice lyrics though.

(I find sites where this song is attributed to Pankaj Udhas whereas I always thought this was sung by Vinod Rathod. And not just in the film but also playback. Can somebody please clarify the situation? Maybe the Pankaj Udhas version was a non-film version?)

10) Hoshwaalon ko khabar (Sarfarosh - 1999). Jagjit Singh’s voice, Nida Fazli’s lyrics, Jatin-Lalit’s music. Picturised on Aamir Khan, for Sonali Bendre.

Another song from the 1990s that stands out in a decade known more for catchy music than lilting, romantic melodies. But when you get Jagjit Singh, you know you are going to get sanity in the midst of any insanity that’s happening all around him. This is a delightful romantic number, with fun picturisation on a playful Aamir Khan and Sonali Bendre. I never tire of watching it  – and since it meets all my criteria - I thought it brings up very nicely the end of my list. Am very happy to have Jagjit Singh on my list – somehow a list of supposedly “soulful” songs without a Jagjit number in it doesn’t quite seem right.

So how did you like my list? I thoroughly enjoyed making it – though I must admit there were times when I wished I’d relax my rules just a little bit. (Not having “khilte hain gul yahaan” or "jeevan se bhari teri aankhen" because Kishore was already “taken”, for example. Or "main nigaahen" because Rafi was "taken".) And it seems like sacrilege to not have even one song of Naushad, SD Burman, Shankar Jaikishen, Madan Mohan, OP Nayyar or RD Burman. But that’s how it turned out for me and, all things considered, I’m glad I didn’t break the rules – and yet managed to come up with ten songs that I’m quite happy with.

Let me know what songs you’d have liked to have in your list. Of course my constraints don’t apply to you, so feel free to enrich this post with your suggestions.

Open Letter to Shri Anna Hazare

Dear Annaji,

I am writing this letter to you in the hope that you will take the trouble to read it, deliberate on it with your team and find some value from it. This is about the anti-corruption movement that you are leading in the country today.

At the outset, I would like to inform you that I am not a politician, I am not a lawyer, I am not a social activist, I am not a mediaperson, I am not affiliated to any business - I have no interest whatsoever other than in the capacity of a common man of India (aam aadmi) in writing this.

Having said that, I have been following your anti-corruption movement from April this year when you went on your fast at the Jantar Mantar in Delhi. I have also been following ever since, on a daily basis, the various developments on this topic through various media (print, TV, internet). I was also one of the attendees at the meet arranged by India Against Corruption (IAC) at Bangalore in June this year.

I therefore feel invested enough to write this letter to you with my views and some suggestions.

First of all, I’d like to say that there is hardly anybody in India who does not agree with you that corruption is rampant (and that’s an under-statement) in our society. As you and others in your team have repeatedly said, corruption exists at all levels in the country. To get a birth or death certificate or passport or driving licence, you need to bribe somebody. And, at the highest levels of the government, corruption is being unearthed regularly. We are all aware of the various scams like CWG, 2G and the Adarsh Housing Society scam that have come to public knowledge recently. So your point on this is indisputable and well-taken.

Secondly, I totally agree with you when you say that one of the major reasons for corruption in our society is that our current laws do not have adequate deterrents to check corruption and punish the wrong-doers.

Thirdly, you are right in saying that our existing institutions have often been found wanting in addressing corruption matters. We have a justice system that seems to be painfully slow (and sometimes not entirely independent) in meting out justice. We have institutions like the CBI and the CVC which seem to have either limited powers or questionable independence. Why, we even have Parliament where our elected representatives are supposed to act in the interests of their constituents but have often been found to misuse their powers for personal gain. So I think it is fair to say that our institutions have not quite delivered to their brief.

All of this is true and I totally agree with you on these observations.

I would like to now share with you some of my own thoughts on this corruption subject.

In my humble opinion, there are several ways to address this scourge of our society.

One way of course is the Lokpal approach. If we have a Lokpal, an effective Lokpal, with Lokayuktas in various states, the common man can approach this institution with his grievances and hope for redressal. The Jan Lokpal Bill that you have been espousing so strongly and passionately for so many months now is geared towards the setting up of this institution.  You and your team have been working day and night to ensure the Bill contains all the provisions and safeguards for an effective Lokpal institution. I will not debate this – all I will say is that it is an option to fight corruption, yes. One option.

I would also like us to consider other options. Our objective is one and the same – both of us want to fight corruption. It is just that there need not be only the Lokpal way.

I know there is history behind this Lokpal subject. The country has been trying to get a Lokpal Bill passed for over 40 years now as its instrument to combat corruption. But that, in itself, is no reason to continue to pursue ONLY on this path. As long as our objective of fighting corruption is achieved – by legal and viable means – we should not need to quibble over whether it was done via a Lokpal or through another method.

Let me give you an analogy. It may not be completely comparable to the Lokpal subject but I hope it helps to understand what I am trying to get at.

Till 15 years ago, connectivity via telecommunication in India was limited to only a few who could afford landlines. The rest of the country had to use public booths , if they were available, or go without telecommunication connectivity at all. Today, thanks to explosion in telecommunications technology,  almost everybody seems to be connected. We did not invest in more landline production to scale to our needs (though we could have technically done so), we just exploited mobile technology that had arrived. Our objective was telecommunication for all, not a landline phone for all.

Similarly, I would think the objective here for all of us is to find a solution against corruption, NOT the creation of a Lokpal. They are two different things and we need to understand this.

Now if we ARE considering alternatives, I would like to take the following approach. This is not, by any means an exhaustive list of steps we could take. It is only indicative of an approach I would like to consider.

Strengthen our existing laws: We already have a Prevention of Corruption Act. I am not competent to comment on its provisions but if it lacks enough teeth, let us push for change in this piece of legislation and make sure it has teeth. Similarly if we have other laws that have loopholes that encourage corruption or do not have strict enough provisions to deter corruption, let us push for change in these. If any of this requires a constitutional amendment, so be it.

Strengthen our existing institutions: Through electoral reforms, let us work on ensuring accountability in our elected representatives in Parliament. Through judicial reforms, let us work on improving accountability and transparency in our justice system. If we feel bodies like the CBI and the CVC lack independence or powers, let us work on the necessary changes required to give them these.

Exploit technology to create transparency and ensure faster and direct delivery of services: In this day and age, a lot can be achieved through smart use of technology to replace inefficient and outdated practices and completely redesign new systems and ways of doing things. For example, the UID (Aadhar) project is one which could considerably improve transparency of our social benefits system and help plug leakages in it.  There are other areas too where technology could make life easier for the aam aadmi and eliminate middlemen (read, reduce corruption).

Improve transparency in land and other natural resource ownership patterns: I believe a large part of corruption (and black money) in the country stems from land-related dealings. A lot of land / property is held in benami ownership,  ownership and valuations are not transparent, most of our court cases are property-related, I can go on and on. So, if we want a quick win in our fight against corruption, it would make sense to make this a high priority area to streamline and completely make transparent.

Like I said, this is not an exhaustive list. We can add to this. But I do believe that if we even do just the above (which is a lot and is going to take time and effort), we will see a significant reduction in corruption in our country. And this would be without the creation of a Lokpal. It would only be with the use of, and strengthening, our current infrastructure. And building progressive infrastructure for the future which would be systemic and not human-dependent.

I know the Lokpal debate has been raging for a long time now and is now in its advanced stages, virtually on the verge of approval by both Houses of Parliament. It would appear that this letter is being written after the ship has sailed (or the horse has bolted the stable, whichever metaphor you prefer). Maybe this is true - but as long as the Lokpal is not officially there and functioning, I have hope that other alternatives can also be considered.  Yes, it would mean a lot of energy and effort of the last eight months for the Jan Lokpal Bill would seem to have been for nothing but for something as structural and long-lasting in its impact as this, what is eight months?

I would also like to add that, should you consider the alternative approach and decide to withdraw the demand for a Lokpal, it should most certainly not be seen as a failure of any sort for you or your team. You have already achieved a lot in terms of raising awareness amongst a traditionally indifferent Indian public and that is an achievement in itself. This is not about winning or losing, it is about doing what seems to make most sense.

Thank you for your time and patience in reading this.

With warm regards and wishing you the best of health,

Ra-One ka maheena

Ra.One is apparently a Diwali release (still a week to go!) but the relentless bombardment of promos and interviews this month on every TV channel (except possibly Doordarshan) has got to me!

I've always considered myself a Shahrukh fan, I've rooted for his Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) IPL team for him alone.

But there's only so much I can take. I do not know what Shahrukh is expecting to achieve with this repetitive numbing of his TV audiences but I will not be surprised if I'm not the only one feeling a sort of repulsion towards this movie now. A sort of backlash triggered by this sustained attack on my senses.

I would perhaps not have minded so much if the film promotion had dominated the entertainment channels alone. Zoom, UTV Stars, MTV et al. But when I find the news channels blaring Ra.One when I'd rather see them discussing Telangana or Occupy Wall Street, I don't take too kindly to this intrusion in my TV watching experience.

This also happens to be protest season. Not just in India but all over the world.

So I decided to compiled my own form of protest about Ra.One. Not that anybody cares but it feels good to be able to get this out of my system in this non-violent manner. The other option would have been to ram my fist into my TV - but then only I would have been the loser.

Now can somebody please get this over to Shah Rukh Khan? It is in good humour and is only my way of saying "aur nahin bas aur nahin, Ra-One ke chhaaley aur nahin".

Here goes:

Ra-One ka maheena
Har channel karey sor
Jiyara re lagey hai aise
Naatak hai ye koi ghor

Shahrukh ghajab dhaaye
Bhale hi mere bhaiya
Chaahe wo kharcha kare
Lakhon hi rupaiya
Dekha jaaye naahi
Phillum ye laage bore
Jiyara re lagey hai aise
Naatak hai ye koi ghor

Shahrukh karey joron se
Humko ishaara
Naahin phansenge bhaiya
Binti karey bechaara
Marzi hai hamaari
Karta jaaye wo sor
Samjha kaa hai sasuraa
Saha jaaye na ye aur!!!

The Lokpal Bill - horizon looms beyond the stormy seas?

So after a period of drama and needless distractions in the last two months, there will be a Lokpal Bill that will be put to Parliament in the monsoon session. While there are no guarantees that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament by the end of the session, there does seem to be a reasonable likelihood of this happening.

Why then, as somebody who has been following developments on this every day since Anna Hazare’s fast on April 4th, am I not elated at this potentially historic development?

Something tells me that we may still not get quite the legislation to fight corruption that we, the people, are hoping for. I hope I am wrong but that is my gut feel right now.

Let me explain.

The Joint Committee for drafting the Lokpal Bill have ended their series of meetings with serious differences on some points. Although the government is trying to underplay these by talking about convergence on about 43 out of 50 points, the ones that remain are significant enough to be worrisome. While there will be one overall Lokpal Bill put up to Parliament, both versions (govt and Anna Hazare team) of these contentious points will be drafted into the Bill for Parliament’s discussion.

I have looked at these points and, while I am no expert, I must say that the overriding feeling I get is that the common man will be short-changed yet again if the government version is accepted by Parliament. That’s my high-level takeaway because to me the government version is largely just tinkering with the status quo and does not reflect the fundamental paradigm shift in modus operandi for handling corruption that the common man of India wants.

There seems to be a major difference in the vision of the Lokpal that the Anna Hazare team has, as compared to what the government seems to have. This is reflected in the details of the differences.

The Anna Hazare team sees the Lokpal as an independent institution, not attached to the Government of India. It will have authority to investigate complaints and prosecute offenders, without any political interference or influence.

In order to be independent, it will need to be set up by an independent, non-political panel. Similarly, if the Lokpal needs to be removed from office, this power will also only vest in an independent, non-political panel.

A similar structure will be set up as the Lok Ayukta at the state level. Completely independent from the state government and fully empowered to attend directly to citizen complaints of corruption against state government officials.

On an administrative level, the Anna Hazare team has kept the common man in mind. Recognizing that it is very difficult for the common man to prove a case of bribery or corruption, the onus has been passed to the government to prove that corruption has not happened in case time-bound tasks are not delivered within the timeframe. Thus, perhaps unintentionally, a framework for improving efficiency of the government in serving its citizens is also being proposed to be set in place.

Similarly, to ensure that the deterrents for corruption are meaningful and not token or symbolic (as is often the case at the moment), the Anna Hazare team proposes deterrents that include not just convictions but also liability to reimburse to the full extent the damage caused by such corruption.

In the view of the Anna Hazare team, nobody is above the law when it comes to corruption. And if we don’t want to allow loopholes in our attempt to address this scourge, we cannot allow any institution to be outside the purview of the Lokpal. (There are checks and balances proposed to ensure the Lokpal itself is made accountable). Thus the Prime Minister and the higher levels of judiciary are also sought to be brought within the ambit of the Lokpal.

That, in a nutshell, is the vision of the Anna Hazare team. A truly empowered and independent anti-corruption body in the Lokpal (and the Lok Ayukta), accessible to the citizens of the country for their grievances against corruption.

Like Dr. Kiran Bedi says “Today if we want to call the police, we dial 100 (or some number). If we want to complain against corruption, what number can we dial?”

The government vision, on the other hand, is very different.

While it constantly professes to be serious about fighting corruption – and I would like to give it the benefit of (the huge) doubt on this matter – it seems to me to be uncomfortable with the whole “powerful, independent Lokpal” concept.

The fact is that a truly independent and powerful Lokpal would make many government officials squirm.

Up until just about a year ago, the so-called independent institutions in the country, for example, the CBI, the CVC, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, did not disturb politicians’ sleep too much. Yes, they may have made the odd remark or produced the odd report but, at best, it caused a minor flutter and was quickly forgotten in a country with numerous distractions.

Even the judiciary, supposedly neutral and the pillar of justice in a democracy, seemed to be reluctant to take a strong view of any government actions.

The media, “the fourth estate in a democracy”, seemed to be chugging along with its usual fare of reporting. Nothing spectacular. Just the usual news, interviews, debates.

It was pretty much “business as usual” for the government.

And then the corruption scams began getting exposed, one by one. The scale of the scams was so staggering that it left a nation, used to corruption for decades, horrified.

The media, whether sensing TRPs or genuinely outraged, became relentless in its coverage of these stories. The usually sedate Supreme Court decided to express its outrage and began issuing strong messages to the government.

Now I may be appearing to be digressing from the main topic but I think it is very important to mention all this because it serves as the backdrop for understanding the government’s attitude to this Lokpal Bill.

It is normal human psychology that when you are losing control of something, you make every effort to regain control, otherwise you lose it for ever. This applies to everything in life.

We need to remember that the government had proposed a weak Lokpal Bill earlier. One that would, if passed, meet its professed commitment to fighting corruption but would not bring about any real change at the grassroot level for the common man.

We need to remember that although we have a Lok Ayukta system in place even today, it is hardly effective because it does not have true independence from the government.

So, while it was working towards continuing the status quo with purely cosmetic changes, the government is hardly likely to now suddenly start embracing something that, if implemented in its purest form, could be the government’s worst nightmare.

Not only would the government lose control over institutions (that would be bad enough!) but ministers, bureaucrats and others currently used to zero-accountability to the public would suddenly become as “ordinary” as other members of the public, answerable for corruption cases just like anybody else. And with strict punishment to boot.

So clearly the government’s vision of the Lokpal is far more limiting than that of the Anna Hazare team. If at all there needs to be an institution not entirely controllable by the government, surely the next best thing is to limit its scope?

The government has extremely erudite and articulate representatives on its drafting panel and they make extremely strong arguments for their case. They argue why they feel the Lokpal could end up becoming another “parallel” government, why it would be a “leviathan”, why it is not practical or feasible to cover so many government employees (central and state) within the ambit of the Lokpal, why it is naïve to assume that the same, supposedly corrupt, government employees today would suddenly become clean if under the Lokpal.

I do not agree with any of this. First of all, accountability does strange things to people. A lot of today’s corruption comes because of lack of accountability. Lack of a redressal mechanism for the aggrieved is a huge reason for corruption too. Introduce a “dial-a-complaint-number” and see what happens. Add to that the fact that punishments are not just a gentle tap on the wrists anymore. I believe that if the citizen chooses to use his powers under the new legislation, a large number of petty corruption cases will just disappear because the system would have been strengthened. So we do not need an “army”, as the government representatives would like to have us believe.

These representatives have also been at pains to explain why they feel the Prime Minister’s office and senior members of the judiciary should be excluded from the ambit of the Lokpal. And why ministers should continue to get immunity (as provided for in the Constitution) for their actions inside Parliament.

I can see their point about the PMO’s office though I don’t agree with it. I may just agree with their point about senior members of the judiciary, provided the judicial reforms they talk about then are as strong as the Lokpal in dealing with corruption in the higher judiciary. If they came within the ambit of the Lokpal, that would already be within a standard framework, but if not, then similar independence, transparency, punitive measures would need to be set up. Seems unnecessary. As for immunity for ministers in Parliament, this needs to go. If this requires a constitutional amendment and could delay the process of this anti-corruption legislation (although some amendments seem to miraculously get passed very easily), I’d push for this at a later point in time.

To me, as a common man, these are not the points that dishearten me the most in the current debate. I know these have been the hottest subjects of debate but what matters most to me are a couple of other things.

Apparently, a state can opt for whether it wants a Lok Ayukta or not. I just do not understand the logic of this. Surely we should have a unified, simplified mechanism across all states for fighting corruption? We are trying to build a sustainable institutional framework here for the entire country, not something arbitrary for a part of it. The common man in every state has considerable dealings with his state government and is entitled to expect the same support and redressal mechanism that others with a new-look and empowered Lok Ayukta will have available to them. Why try to invent different solutions for different states?

The other point I am concerned about is the independence of the Lokpal and Lok Ayukta. The government seems to want to introduce government representatives into the panel that can remove a Lokpal. Why? Surely this can compromise the independence of the Lokpal?

There seems to be divergence also on the funding of the Lokpal. Apparently both parties agreed that it will be funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India but the mechanics are under debate. Anna Hazare’s team wants complete financial independence whereas the government seems to want this funding to be provided for by the Finance Ministry. This is no small matter – after all the talk about the Lokpal’s independence, it would be ridiculous if it is capable of being influenced due to financial considerations of budget allocation. Yet I think there is a point to the government’s position too. I am not very knowledgeable in this area but I will only say that if the government proposal is approved, hopefully the Lokpal’s functioning will be transparent enough for us to know if it is is being hampered by its funding or not. There is no way, having come so far, that this can be allowed to weaken the Lokpal’s functioning.

All in all, the struggle is still far from over. Mind you, all this struggle is just to get strong anti-corruption legislation in the country in the first place. This is just to get the framework in place - after that, we have to make sure it works! There will be start-up problems, there will be attempts to scuttle it even after the law is passed, there will be skepticism.

Nobody has ever claimed that this will be a panacea for solving India’s corruption problems. Let’s face it – corruption starts with each one of us. And it goes way beyond the government, we all know that. But if this legislation comes out the way the common man would like it to, it should at least make the government much cleaner and more accountable than they are now. That’s about as much as we can hope for.

A couple of things. I’ve used the term “Anna Hazare’s team” throughout instead of talking of “civil society”. That’s because the government prefers to use this terminology as it believes that “civil society” has multiple voices. I’ve deferred to the government terminology but that does not change anything in the way I perceive this struggle. The movement that Anna Hazare and his team are leading to bring about strong anti-corruption legislation in the country has the backing of the entire nation, even if some may differ on his methods or on the details of some of the proposals. And that is the bigger point here. And what’s in a name anyway? Call it “civil society”, call it “Anna Hazare’s team”, it is the goal that is more important here.

Also, throughout this piece, I’ve not mentioned any specific political party or even the UPA government. It is not a struggle against a particular party, it is a struggle against a system.

I will be continuing to follow progress on the Lokpal Bill with great interest. I have been following this subject ever since Anna Hazare’s fast at Jantar Mantar on the 4th of April. I attended his rally at Bangalore on the 28th of May.

In all these years, I’ve never seen such a concerted effort in the country for changing a system. I was not old enough when the Jayaprakash Narayan movement happened in the country, so I cannot comment about it or draw parallels with Anna Hazare’s movement. All I know is that Anna Hazare and his team seem to me to be driven in their effort to bring about this change in the country.

Finally it is upto the Members of Parliament to pass this Bill and make it an Act. If it is not all that we had hoped for, it is certainly not due to any lack of effort on the part of Anna Hazare’s team. In any case, it is likely to be much, much better than a toothless bill that would have passed off as anti-corruption legislation in the country. Having said that, if it turns out not to be effective enough, we might need to make our voice heard by the government again.

So I am under no illusion at all that we’re close to anything right now. We’ve still got a long way to go. But as long as we keep up our efforts, as long as we do not allow ourselves to go back to our indifferent selves, as long as the government realizes that it cannot take us for granted anymore, we have hope for change.

It is not about Anna Hazare and his five-member team. It is about each one of us.

Indian Politics Today - in a lighter vein

The last four days have seen a lot of petty drama in Indian politics. It seems to have stooped to a new low. Following the news, I couldn't help feeling that the events of the last few days would put even a Bollywood masala film to shame. If Indian politicians can keep this up, you've got to think that a few producers in Bollywood would be seriously worried that they'd be out of business very soon.

Where there's Bollywood, there's song and music, and - without meaning any disrespect to the serious business that governance is - a few songs did cross my mind as I watched the events unfold.

A sample:

1) Dayanidhi Maran, now Textiles Minister but once Telecom Minister, was dragged into the 2G scam. He vehemently denied all accusations and rubbished claims from former Aircel owner, Sivasankaran, that he was "arm-twisted" by Maran into selling Aircel to the Sun group.

Dayanidhi Maran (in Anil Kapoor mode):
2G, No jee, meri bhi suno ji
Main hoon beqasoor ji
Karna hai tumko jo, jaao karo ji
Sivasankaran, aur tu mat ban
My name is Maran
My name is Maran

2) Four senior minsters of the UPA govt welcomed Baba Ramdev at Delhi airport and held talks with him, apparently trying to placate him and ask him to call off his proposed fast. Apparently a deal was struck but Baba did not honour the deal. Kapil Sibal was enraged that the Baba reneged on his word, and went about flashing to the media, a written commitment from the Baba to the government, agreeing to its terms.

Kapil Sibal (in Jagjit Singh mode):
Wo kaagaz pe likhi, wo jhoothi kahaani
Ye dhokey ka anshan, ye badhti hairaani

3) Baba Ramdev, in turn, blasted the UPA govt, specifically saying he never wanted to ever see Kapil Sibal again

Baba Ramdev:
Badi mushqil hai
Mushqil main Sibal hai
Koi usse khai se uthaaye naa
Jaake kahin wo doob hi jaaye
Koi phir milaaye naa

4) Kapil Sibal lashed back at Baba Ramdev.

Kapil Sibal:
Tum to, dhokebaaz ho
Waada karke, bhool jaate ho

5) An angry government, now determined to “rein in” Baba Ramdev (Kapil Sibal’s words, not mine!) decided on a sinister midnight strategy

Government:
Raat baaki, baat baaki
Hona hai jo, ho jaane do

6) The police gate-crashed Baba Ramdev’s party, burst teargas shells, dispersed the crowd and tried to capture Baba. Although he tried to escape, dressed in woman’s salwar-kameez, the police did get to him.

Police:
Bach ke, bach ke, bach ke
Bach ke kahaan jaaoge
Bach ke kahaan jaaoge

7) The next day, there was a huge outcry all over the country. Even hitherto supporters of the UPA began to express outrage at this overnight action. The BJP, main opposition party in the country, saw its opportunity to cash in.

The BJP celebrated, singing:
Sab kuchh seekha tum ne, na seekhi hoshiyaari
Sach hai Congress-waalon, ki tum ho anaari


8) The PM of the country, Dr. Manmohan Singh, true to style, kept his silence about the midnight police action. Finally, breaking his silence, he defended the govt action but admitted that it was “unfortunate”.

Dr. Manmohan Singh:
Kya se kya ho gaya
O Baba, tere fast pe

9) The Supreme Court, considerably alert nowadays, got into the action and served a notice on the UPA govt to explain the rationale behind the midnight police action.

Supreme Court:
Ye kya hua, kaise hua,
Kab hua, kyon hua

10) At a Congress briefing, a man, posing as a journalist for a Rajasthan publication, managed to put a couple of questions to Congress general secretary, Janardhan Dwivedi. More interestingly, he managed to get to the podium, and just towards the conclusion of the briefing, removed his shoe and threatened Dwivedi with it.

Shoe-guy:
Maar diya jaaye
Ya chhod diya jaaye
Bol tere saath kya salook kiya jaaye

11) Meanwhile, the BJP decided to organize its own protest / rally at the Rajghat in Delhi. Sushma Swaraj, BJP leader, was caught on camera dancing as part of the event. She came in for immediate criticism from the Congress party but, true to form, remained defiant, insisting that there was nothing wrong with singing and dancing to patriotic songs, and that she would do this again if the situation arose.

Sushma Swaraj:
Jab tak hai jaan
Jaan-e-jahaan
Main nachoongi

12) In parallel, the BJP decided to welcome back to its fold, Uma Bharti, one-time prominent leader, who had been dismissed from the party in 2005 for open dissent with L.K. Advani. But these are different times, the BJP needs to win votes in UP/MP and their new leader, Nitin Gadkari, was happy to forgive and forget. A warm welcome was therefore accorded to Uma Bharti.

Nitin Gadkari:
Tum aa gaye ho
Noor aa gaya hai
Nahin to chiraagon se
Lau jaa rahi thi

13) Uma Bharti’s response was equally warm towards the BJP. She claimed that being in politics, she always belonged to only the BJP and no other political party:

Uma Bharti:
Jeene ki tumse
Wajah mil gayi hai
Badi bewajah
Zindagi jaa rahi thii

14) The UPA govt, keen on finding dirt on Baba Ramdev, gunned for his close associate, Balkrishna, claiming he was not of Indian origin and had fake passports. Balkrishna defendend himself strongly but finally broke down.

Balkrishna:
Cheekhne waalon zara, mudke dekho mujhe
Ek bhartiya hoon, main tumhaari tarah

15) In all this, the poor Anna Hazare camp continued to try to stick to its agenda of the Jan Lokpal Bill. While they expressed their unhappiness at the callous manner in which the government seemed to consider their views, the media was more interested in masala and whether Baba Ramdev had upstaged Anna, whether Anna would support Ramdev (considering Ramdev’s rally had assumed political colour following the appearance of the Sangh parivaar members onstage). Poor Anna Hazare was left wondering at what was going on and what he was doing there.

Anna Hazare:
Ye kahaan aa gaye hum
Yunh hi saath saath chalte

***

Who said crucifixion's a thing of the past?

My last post on the whole anti-corruption Bill furore (extremely unfortunately also known as the Anna Hazare furore) left me a bit emotionally exhausted. I do not consider myself a seasoned blogger who can produce post after post with amazing regularity, without compromising on the quality of the post. I admire such people – but am acutely aware of the fact that I do not belong in this league.

I was therefore not expecting to post to my blog so soon after my previous post. But this subject of the Jan Lokpal Bill does not just not go away, it continues to claw away at me, to drag me down in a manner that I must confess I’ve felt only on a few occasions in the past. Normally I’m a pretty upbeat person (I think those who know me will vouch for this!) but in the last week, something’s not been right – and I know that the one subject that has dominated my mind in the last week has been this Jan Lokpal Bill. Maybe it is a reflection of how empty my mind (and my life!) otherwise is, but that’s how it’s been.

I therefore find myself sitting here, once again dumping my thoughts on this subject on my blog, in the hope that I will get some sort of closure on this matter. Once again, this is mainly for myself – if others want to read it, they’re welcome to. I’m keeping it public for that reason. But if they don’t , I’m just fine with that too. But I know I really need this.

I will not repeat all that I’ve already said. At least I will try not to. But there is more that I think I want to put down on this subject.

First of all I want to say that I am extremely saddened by a lot of what I’ve read and heard on this subject. Like I said in my previous post, it is only to be expected that opinion on a subject like this would be divided. And in a democracy, people are entitled to express their views too, their different positions on any issue.

But is THIS how it needs to be done? Even the gutter will feel insulted if I say that some of the stuff doing the rounds belongs there. I’ve never EVER in my life come across writing that is SO vitriolic, SO humiliating, SO demeaning to another, in an attempt to drive home a point.

So you disagree with what Anna Hazare has done. Fair enough. You call it a circus. Fair enough. But please do not ridicule him just because he is an old man from a village. By all means, challenge him on issues. But do you really have to say things like “Anna Hazare, a former driver with the Indian Army who has the useful Indian talent for sitting cross-legged for long periods…” ?

And this was from the editor of a news magazine! And this is just one of many examples that I have come across in just the last few days.

And this really saddens me. Maybe that explains to some extent my disturbed state of mind.

As I’ve said before, I have no problem if people disagree with Anna Hazare. Or even if they want to lash out at him. But surely there can be a more dignified manner of bringing one’s point across?

These are educated people, probably highly educated people. Part of the intelligentsia of the country. They have excellent writing skills and their ability to use humor and sarcasm to bring their point across effectively is exemplary. They are extremely savvy with modern media tools like blogs and Twitter, so their ability to distribute their message across a wide section of society, all over the world, is massive. And given these qualities, they will not only attract readers, they will also become influencers in society.

Maybe this is just how it is in today’s world. Maybe I am the one who’s grown old, who still believes that issues should be debated with dignity and respect towards the other party. And that it should be the ISSUE that is the focal point of the discussion, nothing else.

And that is why I started this post by saying that it is extremely unfortunate that the furore has become an “Anna Hazare furore” instead of being an “anti-corruption” furore.

Reading through all this vitriol (I will admit that I winced several times), I did find valid points. Yes, the constitution is sacred and we need to respect it. Yes, vesting too much power in one authority is a bad idea. Yes, the ideal solution is to get the people to vote intelligently, without duress of any sort. Yes, ideally we should have less government and more governance in the country. And yes, there are a ton of issues that the Jan Lokpal Bill (even when modified) will not address.

I agree with all of these. They are no-brainers. The big issue is that this ideal situation that everybody talks about requires electoral reforms, it requires education of the electorate (a small matter of a few hundred million voters across the country), it requires non-interference of politicians and anti-social elements in the electoral process, it requires considerable overhaul of institutions (and in some cases, elimination of institutions) if we want less government, thereby resulting in less corruption.

I totally endorse all of this and would be very happy if all of this happens. The sooner the better. Citizens can themselves get actively involved in educating others about the value of their vote. Bringing about electoral reforms, overhauling government institutions is going to depend on legislation and Parliamentary sanction – and that once again makes it dependent on the elected representatives in Parliament.

Which brings me back to the point I made in my earlier post – about significant numbers. In a democracy, the vote is king, even in Parliament. Majority votes are required for most decisions. Whether simple majority or two-thirds majority. And that is where the cracks begin to appear.

Not with the Constitution. Certainly not. I believe the Constitution has provided us with an excellent framework, with systems defined for most things, including the roles of the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary. We need to respect it.

Yet, the representatives we have had have repeatedly failed us. As a collective unit in Parliament, regardless of which party has been in power. And, in the case of certain individuals, in living up to the standard that they are public servants and accountable to the public, not masters of the public.

And that is why, while we continue to work on improving the effectiveness of our democracy, while we continue to work on educating our electorate, while we continue to do all that we need to do to reduce corruption, not just in government but also in society (let’s not deny this bit – we need to look at ourselves in the mirror too!), we also need a mechanism – and rather urgently - to make our representatives accountable to us.

For, if there is one thing that I think nobody denies, this accountability is not just essential, but absolutely crucial, for effective functioning of the democracy. It is intertwined with much of what we are trying to accomplish. Yes, we keep coming back to the vote as the tool in the hands of society, but we are still decades from an electorate that can be expected to elect representatives who will, suo moto, introduce and pass strict anti-corruption legislation that makes them accountable.

That is where the current movement, the current push for introducing such legislation urgently comes in.

The people who are attacking Anna Hazare and his associates for their methods, those who are questioning the civil society representatives on the joint committee as not being “elected” representatives of the public – I grant them that they are technically right.

But why doesn’t anybody think that none of this would have been necessary at all, if just like the plethora of legislation we have in the country on a whole lot of things, the government had, on its own, set up strict anti-corruption legislation for members of Parliament by now?

THAT is the issue that hardly anybody in the intelligentsia seems to talk about. Instead I see a wave of agitation that democracy has been undermined (as if successive governments have not undermined it for years, but let’s not go there!). I see a rush to defend the government because these are “elected representatives” who are being “blackmailed” by some “self-professed representatives of civil society”.

Let’s be clear – nobody ever WANTED to do this. The protesters who assembled at the Jantar Mantar, and elsewhere in the country and even overseas, did not do this because they had nothing better to do.

They wanted to get a message across. They wanted to get their voices heard. They find themselves caught up in a situation where millions of apathetic Indians, having equal voting rights as themselves, end up either not casting their vote at all or selling it to the highest bidder. It is the visible voice of frustration, more than anything else.

I would like to think that if the government is stung by this and comes up with a time-bound action plan to introduce a strong anti-corruption Bill in Parliament, if it can assure the public that this will also be passed as legislation, then all would be fine. Everybody is focused on the results. Personally I could not care less if there is a joint committee or not, if the provisions of the proposed Jan Lokpal Bill are taken as the basis or not. If the end-result is powerful legislation, that is all that matters. The ONLY reason the protesters have insisted on a joint committee and on equal representation on the committee, is the total lack of credibility of the current government.

I agree this lack of credibility is not healthy but it is not entirely unjustified either. So let’s also make an effort to understand the genesis of this whole issue instead of just crying foul at the “undermining of democracy by Anna Hazare”.

Before I close this discussion (and I really hope this is closure for me), I want to touch on one other point.

I have seen a lot of ridicule coming the way of the protests from the intelligentsia. Apparently some of the placards had "over-zealous" slogans. I have seen references where these protests have been compared with Tahrir Square or Jayaprakash Narayan’s protests in the 1970s and ended up been mocked at, as a result of this comparison. I have seen comparisons of Anna Hazare with Gandhiji, resulting in mocking of not just Anna Hazare but in certain cases, even Gandhiji.

In both my previous post and in this one, I’ve steered clear of making comparisons. Comparisons make good rhetoric, and the media in particular loves them, but, in my opinion, they only serve as excellent distraction material. The discussion soon degenerates into whether the protests were comparable with Tahrir Square or not or whether Anna ‘s movement is comparable with Gandhiji’s or not.

I would say – who cares? I, for one, don’t. I do not want the focus of the issue to be diluted. The discussion from the first day to this day for me, has been only about corruption, anti-corruption legislation and nothing else. It has not been about personalities.

It is a pity that inspite of having such an excellent Constitution, we have allowed corruption to not just exist but grow to an alarming proportion in the country. We, as citizens, are as much to blame for this as anybody else. We are a very big part of the problem, let’s not point fingers only at the government.

Having said that, let’s also not sling mud at a few fellow-citizens who have chosen to not be as apathetic as most other Indians. Yes, some of us may not like them speaking on our behalf because we feel we have our own voice. But surely, given the scamfest that the country has been “enjoying” in the last year, if their voice makes the government sit up, realize the mood of the public and act, surely that cannot be too bad a thing?

We don’t have to give credit to somebody if we don’t want to. But living as we are in a civilized society, we also don’t have to discredit him in such a brutal fashion.

I think, in hindsight, it would have been best if nothing had happened at all.

Anna Hazare, Kejriwal and the others should never have got into this mess.

We could also all have just gone on with our business as usual.

And I would also not have got so worked up and would have have been able to sleep well too.

Yes, that’s how it works in India. We are like that only.

Why, despite everything, I'm supporting Anna Hazare!

I can hardly believe that it’s been just over a week now since Anna Hazare, the 71-year old social activist, started his fast at the Jantar Mantar in Delhi. His cause? To push for passing a stringent anti-corruption bill (Jan Lokpal Bill) in Parliament that will act as a strong deterrent to corruption for politicians and bureaucrats alike.

The movement gathered momentum, the media began giving it coverage, social media caught on, making it viral – and soon Indians all over the world seemed to be talking about it.

Is it because a seemingly unassuming and simple 71-year old man was taking on the powerful establishment at the Centre, threatening a fast unto death? Or is it that the topic of corruption still resonates with many Indians in some form or the other, inspite of their being desensitized to it from an early age? Or is it just the media playing it up?

Whatever it is, this has arguably been the most discussed subject amongst Indians in the last week. It has been a week of opinion-churning, for sure.

As is not uncommon in a country like India, opinion has been divided on this matter. And, as is to be expected in a democracy, opinion has been expressed freely and in abundance. Across platforms and channels. There are opinions expressed in the print media, there are debates on national television, there are umpteen personal blogs out there on the interwebs with everybody wanting to voice his opinion on this subject.

I have been following all of this very keenly. I’ve rarely, if ever, not had an opinion on social and political issues. And I’ve rarely been shy to express my opinion :-).

But until now, though I’ve been putting out the odd sound byte as a comment on a blog or on Facebook, I’ve not sat down and compiled my thoughts on this matter in the form of a post on my blog. I didn’t feel there was much I could add to what was already out there. So my thoughts were only in my head.

Until I read a tweet a short while ago. It was from Dr. Kiran Bedi. And I must say it has touched a nerve in me. I’ve always been a huge admirer of Dr. Kiran Bedi , right from the days when I was in high school in the mid-late 1970s and she was a fearless police officer. There was something about her spirit, her courage, her uprightness, her attitude that made her a person I respected tremendously.

Her tweet said “Those who raised their voice against corruption are persistently being driven to justify why they did it and whether it was right to do.”

I suddenly got the feeling that I cannot sit, with all these thoughts in my head, and not do anything about them. I am therefore, much against my original intention, putting down my thoughts on this blog, for whatever they are worth. Like I’ve said before, I have no illusions that anybody reads my blog but at least it is a place for me to dump my thoughts.

I will talk here about the dissenting voices that seem to be pretty strong at the moment.

Let me start by saying I totally understand that there is dissent. And I strongly believe that dissent, if brought across in a constructive and meaningful manner, can be valuable in ensuring a measured course of action takes place, instead of one based purely on enthusiasm but not necessarily conceived well enough.

The dissenting voices seem to have two major issues with the whole Anna Hazare protest.

I am not considering here some voices that have questioned his own personal integrity. I am not considering here voices that have claimed he is a proxy for a political party. I am not considering here voices that have rubbished him in other manners (and there have been a few).

I can waste time on these points too but I do not want to dignify such voices with a response. I would rather concentrate on the substantive issues that some of the dissenting voices have expressed.

The two major issues that I think are worth responding to are
- the concern about content of the proposed Jan Lokpal Bill, and
- the concern about the means adopted to bring about action on this matter.

In addition, there is plenty of scepticism, typically along the following lines
- Corruption is so deep-rooted that it’s not going to go away, Bill or no Bill.
- There is so much corruption in other sectors, like corporates, media et al. What about that?
- What about the other problems in society? Nobody seems to be doing anything about that.

Understandable concerns. Understandable scepticism too.

I’ll take them up one by one.

First, the content of the Jan Lokpal Bill.

I will not discuss every detail (partly because it will take too much time, but more because I am totally incompetent to do so). I do know however that the major concern here is that the bill vests too much power in one authority, the Lokpal (Ombudsman). There is also a fear that the scope of what the bill is trying to achieve is not entirely clear, what type of grievances it will cover is not clear. That it is trying to bring under its scope authorities that are already covered by other legislation. And so on and so forth. There is a fear that this will become another monster institution, if one goes purely by the current content of the Bill.

All I will say is that, from my observation so far, those who have drafted this Bill seem to be open to suggestions for change or improvement. Nobody claims that it is perfect. In his interview on Karan Thapar’s “Devil’s Advocate” show, Arvind Kejriwal, social activist and one of the prime drivers behind the Bill, reiterated this point several times.

So, to all those dissenters out there who are bashing the Bill for its “ridiculous” content, I would say “Please, please give your valuable feedback to those in the joint committee. There are various ways of getting your message across to them. Use these channels, come up with your suggested provisions, clause by clause, if you like. The more specific you are, the better of course”.

Remember, this Bill may have been drafted by some persons in the legal profession but it is being done on our behalf and we are entitled to express our opinion, constructively, in its development.

While on this, let me also say that I, for one, am not in any hurry to push through legislation that has not been thought through, purely for the sake of a deadline (whether it be the monsoon session of Parliament or whatever). This is way too important and structural to be dictated by deadlines. So yes, we’ve waited for 42 years and there is a sense of impatience and urgency. But I would be happy if the joint committee appointed to come up with the Bill, could come up with a rock-solid Bill (well, about as rock-solid as a legislation of this type can be) that may even take the rest of the year to stitch together.

Onto the next concern – the means adopted to bring about government action on this Bill.

This is a huge concern. And I can totally see why people are concerned. They feel that this could set a precedent. That anybody tomorrow could just pick up a cause, go on a fast-unto-death action and try to blackmail the government to concede to the person’s case.

Here I’d like to say that we need to give our government a little bit of credit. Not every fast-unto-death action is going to result in the government conceding to the demands being made. If this were the case, we would have had plenty of fast-unto-death actions by now in the country.

No, a responsible government will weigh each protest on its merit, keeping in mind the larger interest of the nation, as opposed to just the interest of the protesting party. And where such larger interest is not affected, where there is merit in the case, there is a good chance that the government concedes. And why not?

I don’t see what the problem is with this approach. It is a peaceful method and, in general, will fly only if there is substance in the argument.

The big criticism here is that this method has no place in a democracy, that it is unconstitutional. Dissenting voices quote from Babasaheb Ambedkar’s “Grammar of Anarchy” speech . I quote it 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.”

I would request those who quote from this speech to try to see it in context. This speech was made at a time when India had just become free from British rule. A time when the Indian Constitution was being put forth as a framework for solving all those issues that existed during British rule when methods such as civil disobedience and satyagraha were the only peaceful recourse for Indians protesting against the establishment.

Dr. Ambedkar would not have expected that a situation would arise in India where there would be a need again for a satyagraha. I thin, had he been alive today and seen the nature of the beast that was attempted to be tackled, he might not have had a problem with Anna Hazare’s method at all.

That brings me to the nature of the beast. It is a peculiar beast here that we are trying to tackle. It is no ordinary legislation that we are seeking to bring about. It is legislation that will rein in politicians, that will make them accountable for their misdeeds, that can result in sending them to jail or paying up huge fines for their corrupt acts. In short, this legislation directly affects their personal interests. It makes them ordinary persons, no different from you and me, the common man or woman.

Unless you are clean or you see yourself as no more a public servant than any other, you are unlikely to be comfortable accepting such legislation for yourself. And that may well explain why this piece of legislation has not been passed yet in Parliament inspite of ten attempts over 42 years!

I am sure there are honest elected representatives in Parliament. I don’t buy the statement “sab neta chor hain” (all ministers are corrupt). But somehow these representatives seem to be outnumbered by those who seem not to have the will to push through an anti-corruption bill that could affect their personal interests. The bottom line is – it has not happened. And there were no signs of it happening in the foreseeable future. Maybe a cosmetic Bill but certainly not one with teeth.

It has been argued that even then Anna Hazare’s action is uncalled for. After all, in a democracy, the instrument to bring about change is the vote. So why not get the right-minded representatives elected, so that legislation can be introduced and passed in Parliament without need to resort to Hazare-like actions?

I agree with this in theory. But I have a huge problem with this in practice. Given the nature of our electoral systems, the nature and maturity of our electorate, the likelihood of a significant number of “right-minded” representatives being voted into Parliament is extremely remote. And by “significant”, I mean a number big enough to be able to draft and push through the required Bill to make it law.

There may also be a bit of a Catch-22 situation here where the candidates’ motivation to get elected may be fuelled by the lack of legislation to check their transgressions in the first place. So you get candidates of questionable integrity lining up for elections. These then use their muscle power to work their way into Parliament. Can we then honestly expect the desired legislation to happen?

Once more I want to say that I am not making a sweeping statement about politicians here. I am just talking about “significant” numbers.

It can be argued that times are a-changing. With a more enlightened society, higher levels of education all round, we may be moving towards higher-quality election candidates and, consequently, a cleaner set of representatives in Parliament anyway. So there was no need to adopt the Hazare method.

I know I’m sounding extremely pessimistic here (and let me tell you, I’m not – you’ll see that later), but I don’t totally agree that there will be a cleaner set of representatives in Parliament purely because of changing times. A more educated set, yes. A cleaner set? Hmm…for me at least, the jury still needs to be out on that one, I'm afraid. Maybe I am battle-scarred (and carrying some baggage) but I was one of those hugely enthusiastic high-school boys when the country ushered in the new Janata government in March 1977, voting an Emergency-afflicted Congress government out of power. The faces changed, some policies did change – but did corruption stop? Nah!

To me, corruption is a function of greed, opportunity and deterrent. As long as you have people whose desires exceed their legitimate means AND they have the opportunity to meet these desires through not-so-kosher means AND you do not have adequate deterrents in place to prevent them from straying, it should not surprise anybody if somebody is found to be corrupt. This applies not only to politicians but to the common man too. Unless we are talking about somebody like Mahatma Gandhi, we should be practical and accept that this is human nature.

So if every five years, we vote out and vote in political parties - but we do not have the critical mass to push through a strong anti-corruption bill to act as a deterrent for corruption – I wonder whether we are not just being theoretical about pursuing democratic means to bring about change for this particular purpose.

Like I said, it is a peculiar beast and one that does not seem to listen to democratic methods. So, I for one, in this particular case, see no harm in using a different, non-violent method to tame the beast.

Ok, that was a long one. But a very important one.

Moving on, and coming to the scepticism.

Yes, this Bill will not eliminate corruption in the country. We need to set everybody’s expectations right. Let’s face it – there is plenty of corruption in the country that has nothing to do with the government. Private business, the media, the common man – everybody is into it in some form or the other. There would be no corruption if there were no bribe-giver for a bribe-taker. Refer to my earlier point about greed.

But that is not to say that this Bill will not help. It will, in its amended version and when converted into legislation, hopefully increase the chance of corruption claims in government being raised more easily, addressed faster and with more definite outcomes. There is a provision for whistle-blower protection, so that should also help bring to light more cases of corruption.

Of course, all this requires execution according to the legislation. Pure legislation has never solved anything without appropriate implementation and execution. But I am hopeful – I have to be, I have no choice – that the situation will be much better than it is today. At least there will be a framework to rein in corruption in public office. And having come this far – and with so much pain – I do not want to think that the last step (the execution) will let us all down. Granted that it is key, but let’s not shoot it down now itself. See, I am not all pessimistic, am I? ;-)

Since the government is a significant party in most dealings with the public and also in allocation of the country’s resources, we should expect to see less corruption in both these areas.

That should be a start towards reducing corruption in society in general. I must say it is only a start. We have miles to go – but every mile starts with the first inch.

While on this, I am reminded of something I heard last week on TV.

In all the noise on this corruption subject, I was impressed by a statement made by somebody in public (a certain young gentleman by the name of Mascarenhas) in one of the TV shows (it was either on TimesNow or CNN-IBN). He said something like this “Even after the Bill is passed, there will be corruption no doubt. But the way I see it is this : Ten percent of people will always be corrupt. Ten percent of people will always follow the clean path. But the remaining eighty percent will go one way or the other. If you find that the corrupt go unpunished or that the clean people are not appreciated for being clean, then people will move towards corruption. So it is for this eighty percent that we need to have a strong anti-corruption law”.

I thought it was a pretty simple but very lucid point he made.

And now another thing that some people are sceptical about.

The fact that an anti-corruption bill will not solve so many other problems that we have in society. Like our water scarcity problem, our lack of sufficient healthcare in the country, and many others.

True. And nobody claimed that this Bill is going to be a panacea for all ills. It is focused on a limited scope and that should be clear to everybody.

On the other hand, if there is less corruption in government, there will be more money spent on those initiatives that the government announces and even allocates funds for, but which often see only a fraction of the funds actually reaching the end purpose.

So while there are several challenges out there that will not be addressed by this piece of legislation, some of them may be benefited.

And if it appears that we are making such a hue and cry about a piece of legislation of which the benefits are not clearly translatable for the masses, it says more about the struggle that this Bill has had to face than anything else.

We have miles to go and lots of challenges. Just economic growth is not enough. Not if the social fabric of the country does not evolve too. And corruption is only one of the areas that eats at this social fabric. There are others that I hope will also be addressed as the nation continues on its path towards progress. It is not without reason that India is ranked very low on the Human Development Index in the world.

But right now the focus is on corruption, so let's get our energy directed towards this issue.

Now that Anna Hazare ji has woken up people of the country, let’s not go back into slumber again. Yes, we can debate his methods, we can argue on the technicalities of the legislation sought to be introduced but let’s see the bigger picture here and what we are trying to achieve.

It is massive and potentially hugely paradigm-shifting for the country. Our economic resurgence may have started in 1991 but it is only now, 20 years later, that our social resurgence seems to be gaining momentum.
Let’s all be part of it!

We owe it to our future generations.

And THAT is why I am supporting Anna Hazare!