Are you a patriot?

Manish Tewari says Team Anna consists of "armchair fascists, overground Maoists, closet anarchists...lurking behind forces of right reaction and funded by invisible donors whose links may go back a long way abroad". I for one would not bother to argue with someone with a misplaced superciliousness permanently pasted on his face whether or not Team Anna is all or any or none of these. 

I would, however, like this self proclaimed defender of the nation to clarify  whether or not he is a patriot. Its not even a phrase difficult to define, unlike "fascist", "anarchist" "Maoist" etc etc. A patriot, just in case the Congress spokesperson is ignorant of the meaning, and his actions lead me to so believe, is someone who is proud of his country for what it does, and is eager to correct its deficiencies, as distinct from a nationalist who is proud of his country no matter what it does . 

No patriot would be blind to the fact that India is sinking deeper every day into the morass of corruption, and that the ordinary citizen is finding it more and more difficult with every passing day to live a life of dignity. No patriot  would question the imperative need for strong action to be taken to root out corruption, or the ordinary citizen's right to demand such action of the government. No patriot would rail against ordinary citizens who make that demand. To the contrary, he would feel impelled to join forces with them. 

Team Anna is a group of ordinary citizens who, with patriotic zeal, have been vociferously demanding of the government that meaningful action be taken to eradicate the scourge of corruption. One may argue about the merits of the anti-corruption measures they are advocating, but no patriot would attempt to weaken and destabilise the powerful citizens' movement which Team Anna has ignited by hurling misleading labels at them. Such action smacks of utter disregard for the responsibility that every patriot has ------ to correct the deficiencies that his country suffers from.

Hence my question to Manish Tewari ------ are you a patriot?

Anna Hazare, Amitabh Bachchan ---- the message , the messenger and the medium

Yesterday, Zee TV telecast a program called Little Champs Sa Re Ga Ma Pa , with Anna Hazare as a guest. I am no TV enthusiast but I switched on the TV yesterday as a gesture of support to the meaningful and well-intentioned anti-corruption movement that Anna Hazare is leading. Moved by the simple, down to earth, warm manner in which Anna exhorted the audience to do their bit to rid the country of corruption, I requested FB friends to switch on their TVs as well. It was a delightful program -----Anna spoke with simplicity and humility and a great deal of emotion, the children sang outstandingly well, and it was hard not to get tearful at the beautiful rendition of such songs as " ae mere watan ke logo". 

However, not everyone liked the idea of Anna appearing on television in this kind of a program. Was the appearance akin to,say, Amitabh Bachchan appearing on Little Champs ahead of the release of Aarakshan? 

Amitabh Bachchan is an actor, he uses the public media to enlarge his audience and generate higher profits for the movie's producer who has paid him the crores of rupees that AB gets paid for starring in a movie. Anna Hazare is a social worker, who uses the public media to spread the message that Indians must step forward and save their country from certain ruin. He does not gain personally from the message, unless one counts greater participation of people in an anti corruption movement as personal gain for Anna.

What Anna and Amitabh Bachchan have in common is that they both use the same medium to spread their message. Does the fact that Amitabh Bachchan uses public media for pecuniary gain preclude Anna from using the same medium for public good? I think not. 

There was a time when TV meant only educational programs or agricultural extension programs or news broadcasts.  We have traveled a long way from those days, and today TV is probably the most significant source of entertainment for millions of Indians. We cannot lose sight of the fact, however, that TV can and should also educate. Were Amitabh Bachchan to hesitate to appear on TV to make a plea that more and more people watch his movie so that he can earn more, for fear of being considered mercenary, while the likes of Anna exploited the massive reach of television to awaken Indians from their deep slumber and remind them of their duties as citizens, we'd probably be a better nation than we are today.

KHUDIRAM BOSE ------ a dedication

Today is the death anniversary of Khudiram Bose ------- this is a dedication to Khudiram Bose, written by my son, Uday Vikram. He’s a student of grade 10, and a passionate admirer of the philosophy espoused by revolutionary freedom fighters such as Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh and Khudiram Bose. 

Have you heard of Khudiram Bose?

He sure has heard of you

Gave up his life with no remorse

To end your servitude

Lively as they say he was

A sharp and hungry mind

Troubled with the thought he was

Of enslavement of our kind

Orphaned at the age of six

But Bose had no regrets

The mother whose love he so relished

Was clearly under threat

Vande Matram, he screamed

A young boy of fifteen

Vande Matram, he screamed

Calling out to a nation asleep

A call that shook the tyrants

A millions laathis fell

But it took a lot more than violence

To have her sons quelled

Vande Matram in the town

The streets it did fill

Young boys scuffled around

Distributing hand bills

Have you heard of Khudiram Bose?

He sure has heard of you

Gave up his life with no remorse

To end your servitude

In Medinipur, 103 years ago

Assembled a crowd of youths

Cast they maddened looks around

But the air was free of hoots

No hues, no shouts

The morning lay in peace

But in came, to drive them out,

Goons of the police

Blood stained the court of guns

Merciless, the laathis came

But up stepped a loyal son

Sushil Kumar was his name

He snatched the weapon from the brute

A boy not older than me

The coward trembled in his boots

While the crowd cheered in glee

He beat the scoundrel black and blue

Before his screams were heard

But our young hero was captured too

And produced before Kingsford

With each stroke of the whip he yelped

But not for help or for himself

Vande Matram, he cried

After each blow was dealt

And to everyone who shed a tear of pride

The fire so fierce had not yet died

For now each drop of teenage blood

Was building up a freedom flood

Have you heard of Khudiram Bose?

He sure has heard of you

Gave up his life with no remorse

To end your servitude

Kingsford feared his death was near

To Muzaffarpur he fled

But to the sons the aim was clear

Sushil must be avenged

Summer’s April 1908

The Jugantar leaders met

Chose they Bose and his mate

To reap the creeper’s death

Prafulla Chaki was chosen too

To repay our beloved mother

Whom they both were loyal to

And thus set out the brothers

The bombs and guns coincidental

To free the mother they both strove

Where only the eyes and heart proved essential

To find the path they roved

Bihar, the home of countless legends

Had given birth to yet another one

With teeming talks of Marx and Lenin

But his mind was ruled by none

Ninth grade, when he first rose

To the service of his mother

And then the anger just explodes

And conquers like no other

A sense of wrong and right

Was all that was required

To bring them all to fight

And leave generations inspired

Have you heard of Khudiram Bose?

He sure has heard of you

Gave up his life with no remorse

To end your servitude

The duo reached the town

With no shoes on their feet

After days of following Kingsford around

They planned an ambush on the street

Around 8.30 as planned,

The judge’s carriage was spotted

They bombed it and ran

They thought they had got it

But Alas! What a disaster!

The carriage contained not the judge

But the wife of a barrister

Who with her daughter was struck

They both ran in different directions

25 miles of running

Before Bose stopped at Veni Station

A sight quite stunning

Clothes unkempt, bare mud -caked feet

And at once police became suspicious

Grabbed him from behind, the cheats

But not against his wishes

Grinned he mysteriously

As the traitors bashed him around

The pistols flew out of his pocket

And Vande Matram out of his mouth

Have you heard of Khudiram Bose?

He sure has heard of you

Gave up his life with no remorse

To end your servitude

Meanwhile, Chaki received some help

A civil servant with regrets

Felt it his duty to treat him well

Gave him shelter, did his best

Mokamghat station

Chaki was discovered

And with no hesitation

He uttered a salute to the mother

And shot himself dead

The English stood in consternation

But they did cut off his head

And sent it home for confirmation

A pity he died among knaves

A great warrior and son

But if we can produce someone even half as brave

The battle is already won

Bose appeared before court

Death was to be his fate

And on the train of martyrdom he climbed aboard

11th August 1908

He smiled as they marched him to his death

What a grievous loss!

But while lived he fought with every breath

And so should you with yours

Have you heard of Khudiram Bose?

He sure has heard of you

Gave up his life with no remorse

To end your servitude.

© Uday Vikram Singh, 2010

Yedyurappa's return -----the case for strong Lokayuktas

"Outgoing Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa, who lost his job in the wake of his indictment by Lokayukta in the illegal mining scam, publicly said he would return to this post in six months", reports a newspaper today. 

Is Mr Yedyurappa hopeful that the charges of corruption laid against him by the Lokayukta will be dropped in the next six months? Such hope cannot be grounded on a faith in the quickness and promptness of our judicial system ----- one cannot live in this country and not know that it takes years to get a case decided. 

Perhaps Mr Yedyurappa is optimistic that the government will "examine" the Lokayukta's report, and choose to reject its findings and recommendations, not because the Lokayukta has based his findings and recommendations upon inadequate evidence but because it is politically expedient to not prosecute Mr Yedyurappa and his associates. In other words, the evidence that has been painstakingly put together by a quasi judicial authority and establishes a prima facie case of corruption against a powerful politician may well be sacrificed in the interest of keeping the Southern bastion of a political party secure.

Or is it the case that Mr Yedyurappa is secure in the knowledge that the Lokayukta's report will remain "under examination" for as long as it takes for a fresh corruption scandal to erupt, preferably involving the other major political party, whereupon media attention will shift away from Mr Yedyurappa and he can quietly return to the Chief Ministership that he's so very reluctantly let go of?

The citizens of this country deserve better than to have tainted leaders remain in power , whether at the Centre or in the States, simply because the members of the political class are, by and large, engaged in a conspiracy to shield each other from the wages of sin. We deserve better than to have men whose integrity is under cloud to run the government, whether at the Centre or in the States.

          Had the Lokayukta's findings and recommendations not been merely advisory in nature, we would not have been faced with the prospect of Mr Yedyurappa's return to Chief Ministership even without the serious charges against him being examined by a criminal court. The Lokayukta himself would have initiated prosecution proceedings against Mr Yedyurappa in the competent criminal court.

We cannot afford to delay any longer the institutionalisation of a strong, independent Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in the States, but the government's Lokpal bill makes no mention of Lokayuktas.  When the principle has been accepted that the Lokpal must be empowered to initiate investigations into allegations of corruption against public servants and in fit cases, initiate prosecution proceedings against them without requiring government sanction, why should it not be immediately extended to the Lokayuktas?

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/will-return-as-cm-in-six-months-says-bsy/826416/

Who is here so vile

Who is here so vile

that will (not) love his country?

If any, speak

For him have I offended.

With apologies to Shakespeare, I think these words most aptly describe the sentiments of the men who lead our country today. They don't care for the millions who starve, the millions who are under nourished, the millions who do not even have access to safe drinking water or sanitation facilities, far less access to education and medical care. They don't care about the lakhs of farmers who have taken their own lives, overwhelmed by the high cost - low return  farming that led them into ever deepening debt traps. They don't care about the environmental degradation that is taking place on such a massive scale ----the dead and polluted rivers, the vanishing forests and wildlife, the marauding of precious ores.They don't care about the slow destruction of the tribal cultures and ways of lives of those displaced by mega irrigation, mining and port projects.

They have no love for the country or its people, no thought for its present or future.

The only concern they have is how long they can hold on to their positions of power, and how much wealth they can accumulate, through fair means and foul, during that time. 

Therefore, when their vile acts are threatened to be exposed, they do not get shamed into silence. Nor do they do  beg the people's forgiveness for having sold their conscience for two pieces of silver. 

What do they is to warn those who threaten to expose them that all of them are partners in crime, secure in the belief that the remark will offend none, for there is no one in the country's political arena who is vile enough to love his country !! 

 "We are not afraid of discussing issues of corruption. The opposition also has too many skeletons in its cupboard.", says the country's Prime Minister !

Lokpal -----a blindspot for Indian Express

Does the BJP stand for anything, asks Tavleen Singh in the Indian Express. Before she goes on to list the many good reasons why she thinks that the BJP today is no more than a poor copy of the Congress, she makes a brief but vitriolic diatribe against the Lokayukta and Lokpal. She objects to the "sanctimonious" tone in which the Karnataka Lokayukta "condemned" the Chief Minister through a "media trial". She speaks in a pitying tone about Mr Yedyurappa now being presumed guilty even though the law states that he be presumed innocent till proved guilty. If we "end up with a Lokpal", she says, he will "behave in exactly this way". She then cautions all those who have leapt on to  Anna "Hazare's dodgy bandwagon" that it is dangerous to allow "leftist crusaders to force their will on an elected government".

That a journalist like Tavleen Singh and a newspaper like Indian Express should be so obdurate in opposing the institutionalisation of a strong, independent Lokpal can only lead one to conclude that for the Indian Express, the Lokpal has become a blindspot. After all, it cannot be that the Indian Express and it columnists lack the perspicacity to see that the existing anti corruption mechanisms have failed miserably to deliver and that corruption can be eradicated only if we have a strong and autonomous anti corruption mechanism.  

The Karnataka Lokayukta has, through a team of officers, investigated the allegations of corruption against the Chief Minister and his associates vis a vis iron ore mining in Bellary. Huge amounts of relevant records have been examined. Detailed reports have been painstakingly prepared. There is enough evidence on record to establish a strong case against Mr Yedyurappa and his associates, strong enough for the matter to be placed before a criminal court for prosecution of the accused. However, the law as it now stands in Karnataka does not allow the Lokayukta to initiate prosecution proceedings in the competent court. He is required to place the findings of his investigation as well as his recommendations regarding appropriate action before the government. That is what Justice Hegde has done. That he has also elected to make his findings public is a choice dictated by the total collapse of our institutions. Neither he nor any other citizen, for that matter, expects the government to take action against  powerful men in business or politics, notwithstanding  the compelling evidence that they have indulged in acts of massive corruption. However, public pressure and media attention can make the government act, even against its inclination. It can make the government examine the Lokayukta's report in an objective manner, and initiate criminal proceedings against the accused if it agrees with the findings of the Lokayukta. The courts will then decide whether or not the accused are guilty of acts of corruption. In the meantime, it is in the fitness of things that the accused not hold public office. 

Where does the question of trial by media come in? Media has only demanded that Mr Yedyurappa demit office, there being reasonable ground to doubt his integrity. Neither the media nor indeed the Lokayukta have pronounced the accused guilty. If the statement that there is a strong prima facie case against Mr Yedyurappa and the Reddy brothers is construed as a pronouncement of Mr Yedyurappa's guilt, then the fault lies not with the Lokayukta or with the media but with those who draw the wrong conclusions. 

If in the coming months the government acts in such a manner as to restore its credibility vis a vis the battle against corruption, why would the Lokpal feel compelled to "behave exactly " in the way that the Karnataka Lokayukta has? In any case, if a Lokpal is instituted as envisaged by the Anna Hazare team, the Lokpal itself will initiate criminal proceedings against the accused in fit cases. It will not need to wait for the government to examine its findings and grant its approval, and therefore, not feel the necessity of sharing its findings with the public in the expectation of public pressure ensuring that the report is not placed by government officials at the bottom of a pile of dusty files, never to be looked at again!!

"Dodgy bandwagon" ? If at all the adjective 'dodgy" is to be used in public space, it would most appropriately describe the response of political parties ----every single one of them ----to the challenge of eradicating the scourge of corruption. Anna Hazare, his team and his supporters are neither unreliable nor shifty ---to the contrary, they have remained firm, steadfast and clear headed in their commitment to securing an autonomous and strong anti corruption mechanism. Nor can they be dismissively described as "leftist crusaders" -----they espouse no political philosophy, neither left nor right or centre, but only demand a corruption free India. Does the Indian Express and its columnists find it so difficult to understand that an Indian can be pro India even without being  pro BJP or pro Congress ?

Bribes in party manifestoes

1.   The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for the disqualification of the elected representatives of the people if the said representatives are found guilty of corrupt practices. The Act inter alia defines “corrupt practices” as follows:

123. Corrupt practices.—The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:—

(1)        "Bribery", that is to say—

(A)        any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing—

(a)        a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or

(b)        an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to—

a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or

(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;

2.   Thus, any offer or promise of any gratification made to an elector by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate, with the object of inducing him to vote at an election or as a reward for having voted at an election is deemed to be a corrupt practice. That’s clear enough. However, there is ambiguity regarding the offer or promise made on behalf of the candidate in the manifesto of the political party which he represents in the election.

3.   The candidate who contests an election on a political party’s ticket is presumed to be in agreement with and bound by the party manifesto. He can neither disown nor dispute any offer or promise made in the manifesto, whether it is to do with governance or policy or gifts to citizens. All the offers and promises made in the party manifesto may be said to have been made on behalf of the candidate and with his approval. Instead of each candidate who contests elections on a party ticket making those offers and promises individually, the party manifesto makes these offers and promises on behalf of and with the approval of the candidates.

4.   Such being the case, if an offer or promise made in the party manifesto is hit by the definition of “corrupt practice”, the candidate who contests the election on that party’s ticket would be guilty of “corrupt practice” even if he or his agent have not directly made such an offer or promise.

5.   All offers or promises made to the electors in the party manifesto offering pecuniary benefits such mixer grinders, television sets etc if the party forms the government would be covered by the definition of “corrupt practices”, even if the manifesto does not explicitly state that the offer or promise is being made to induce the electors to vote for that party’s candidates in the elections. The direct link between the offer or promise of pecuniary gifts and the party being voted to power is ground enough for such a reading of the law. There can be little doubt in the mind of the elector that the pecuniary benefits offered or promised in the manifesto will fructify only if he casts his vote in favour of that party. In other words, he is being induced to vote for that party by the offer or promise of pecuniary benefits if the party is voted to power.

6.   Were the candidate to offer or promise that every elector would be gifted a mixer grinder if he is elected to power, he would be held guilty of having indulged in a “corrupt practice”. Making such an offer or promise in the party manifesto is simply the expedient by which the candidate shields himself from the invocation of the provisions of the law regarding disqualification on the ground of “corrupt practices”.

7.   Should the law not be amended to explicitly state that offers or promises of pecuniary benefits made in the election manifesto would attract the provision of section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951? Had we had such a provision, would the AIADMK government in Tamil Nadu been readying itself to hand out thousands of crores of the taxpayer’s money as the freebies promised in its manifesto?