Gautam Adhikari,
Former Executive Editor,
Times of India.
25/08/2011
Dear Sir,
I tried searching your email ID to contact you personally for you article in the Times of India, 25/08/2011- Fasting As Democracy Decays, but was unable to find it on the net. So, here I write and hope that it will reach you sooner or later.
I was really upset and disappointed to find that a man of your stature and knowledge could actually publish something like that. I was flabbergasted and hence, you may call it an action in heat of the moment. Your concerns over the decay of Indian Democracy is absolutely justified. But again, isn't the realization too late? The seeds of the decay of Indian Democracy were sown long before when India was born in 1947. The largest Democracy in the world is already decayed while some social activist tries to bring in a preservative so that the Democracy which is yet to be born does not face the same situation. You might call a 65 year long family regime a Democracy... I call it autonomy. We today, are under the rule of Monarchs who have been ruling the country for more than a half a century. Tomorrow, their sons, grandsons, and great grandsons may take over the Congress. Indian National Congress does not exist. The only thing that is ruling the largest democracy in the world is pure Monarchy.
You have written in your article "We vote regularly and throw out parties in power when majority wants change". First, I would like to point out that we do not vote regularly!! The average vote percentage in this country hardly touches 50. So it's not a matter of majority wanting change, coz the majority doesn't even vote. Moreover, the people who caste their votes also consists of people who have sold their votes to parties in exchange of little favours which they keep getting once in every five years. Furthermore, how many times have you seen changes occurring in these 65 years? Hadn't it been a change if the Lokpal Bill was passed in 1971 with some major discussions and thought processes going in it? But it didn't happen. Did it? So it is quite clear, we haven't seen changes or else the nation today wouldn't have been demanding one so desperately. Seems quite logical.
Second, you say citizens of a truly liberal democracy must demonstrate their understanding, popular acceptance and daily practice of democratic behaviour in the interlude between elections. But this article too comes at a time when we sense elections are somewhere around the corner. Isn't the whole article politically motivated? The crores of Indians reading TOI on 25/08/2011 must have gone through your article. You might have as well succeeded in convincing the ones who seem to sway with some educated, well edited, articles with a strong name attached to it. But again, I do not think that many of them would agree with you as long as Anna is fasting and they too have some brains.
Third, you say "Anna Hazare's fast unto death is a clear instance of misunderstood democracy. He and his supporters believe that it is quite democratic to either get his way or commit suicide". I would really like to know what democracy is in your words. It is not getting things done from the government at gun point for sure, but do you see a democratic way to do the same and fight against corruption? If there had been one, it would have already been discovered in these 65 years. Fighting against something serious has never been considered democratic in this country and never will be in times to come. But Anna has surely found a way to bring about a change, and people like you are the ones who oppose it in any manner whatsoever. We won't be surprised to know if there is some political vested interest of yours in writing such an article. The nation doesn't expect this from a person like you. If suicide is against democracy, then there are many things which are- I won't be going into all that assuming you would already know that by the recent events. So why do you only point out the suicide factor and raise it as an issue against democracy? You say citing Gandhi in support of fasts is misconceived. I guess so is your article. It has more to it that all that meets the eye.
Fourth, you say about Gandhi- The great man fasted against an imperial rule in an undemocratic society. Agreed, but are you saying whatever Gandhi did was right just because he did it against an imperial rule and not a Democracy and Anna is wrong just because he is doing it in a democracy? First of all, Democracy or no Democracy, whatever is done to bring about a change is always unacceptable at that point of time. When it is finally successful in bringing about a change, everything seemed perfect. You say- For Gandhi, fasting fitted well into his framework of civil disobedience. I ask, Just because it is named a Civil Disobedience movement, things are acceptable, whereas in Anna case he does it under a different name, things are not? Is it just for the namesake? I am sorry to say but it makes no sense at all. You say Gandhi worked against the law as it then prevailed. So is Anna. Mr. Adhikari, I must tell you, be it Gandhi or Anna- fought for change. A must change for the Indian society. You may give it whatever name you feel like, the bottomline is both fought for something relevant- A change in the political system. We do not need any certificates to prove whatever Anna is doing is noble and today we might go to any extent to achieve it. Just like people who fought in the struggle for Independence. Even Civil Disobedience was against the ways of that time and there would have been editors like you who would have pointed out that such a thing is against the political laws of that time. If whatever Anna does, should be under a Democratic way, I'd say it's better to give up the fight because then we should not expect changes. We have been doing things the democratic way since 1947 and look where we are.
You say whatever Anna is doing is not a fight against corruption. I beg to differ. I really feel amazed and ashamed at the same time when people say that such a move won't end things the way they are and won't mark a new beginning. If this is the attitude of a well known and famed editor of a leading newspaper, I do not know what to say further. If something is being done for a cause, there are always obstructions in between who tend to hamper the movement. You are one such obstruction who can influence a mass at will. If you cannot play a role in supporting something useful, do not play a role in demotivating your readers. This is not just my request. It is a request of every Indian reading your article.
You say making Lokpal sit to end the corruption in judgement over everybody else is a silly idea. It might be a silly idea but a similar idea brought about changes in Singapore in 1982 to make it the Singapore we know today. You might say that this is India, and nothing like that would happen over here. Well, then nothing goes in trying. We can say we tried. Had you been in the pre-independence era you might have said that all those movements by Gandhi and his followers would not end the 200 year old regime by the English. But you see, changes do happen when "Majority" wants it to happen.
You describe India or rather accept that India is among the most corrupt nations of the world. Let me tell you a fact, which you might already be knowing. India is placed 73rd in the world's most corrupt countries behind nations like USA, UK, and Russia. But that sure doesn't make the fight against corruption any less venomous. Why is India at the top in terms of accumulated amounts in the Swiss Banks? It has been the result of people following a democracy since the past 65 years!!
Then you say "Fighting Corruption should mean fewer checkpoints, not more". I said have to say a "WOW"... a big wow to that! I have no other adjectives to describe this sentence. This shows according to you, we had more checkpoints on corruption all these 65 years and that is why we have the top slot in the Swiss Bank accounts which is 4 times than Russia (2nd in the rankings). I find it so weird that you can say all that under political influences. Your whole article suggests that the Congressmen have bribed you to express Dr. Manmohan Singh's words in your editorial section. Even after resignation, you seem to be of great value to the government.
You call this movement a Cancer, ignoring the general corruption all these years. Yes, one man dared to raise his voice. It doesn't mean that we should suppress it. Every common man today is facing corruption in some form or the other in his daily life. That is the hard earned money of poor Indian people that fill the pockets of our political leaders. So, what sense it makes not to raise voice against it? Every Common man has his share of problems with the corrupt bureaucracy we face today. But every man cannot go onto streets and join the protest. Anna has provided that platform for the common man. If this opportunity is lost, we might see another century dominated by a corrupt family regime. I think I have made it clear why Anna is there today and why you are writing an article concerning him.
There are only two kind of people in this world-1. Who come forward for something good 2. Who find ways to suppress the good by their unorthodox views. You have made it quite obvious which is your kind. Whenever there is a scenario of political unrest, some raise their voices in order to get noticed by blowing against the wind. In your case, it is a similar condition- To get noticed. Yes! We have noticed you and also identified your personal interests in writing such an article. But let me assure you, no matter how much Dr. Manmohan and company make you write all this stuff Anna will live... and LIVE FOREVER!
Jai Hind.
-----------------------------
TARUNENDRA PRATAP SINGH
