According to press reports, Anna Hazare wants representatives of tribals, Dalits, minorities and youth in his next core committee. On the face of it, the anti-corruption crusader's idea to make his executive group broad-based, including all sections of the Indian society, seems sensible and necessary. However, when one examines the issue closely, it appears an over-reaction to a politically motivated, malicious campaign mounted by a small group of Dalit and Muslim fanatics like Udit Rajs, Kancha Illiah, Farooqis, etc. Even at the peak of the anti-corruption movement in its Ramlila Ground phase, when a vast number of Anna supporters assembled there day after day and night after night, representing all classes, castes and age groups, this anti-national bunch started insinuating that all this tamasha was an upper caste affair; Dalits and minorities are not there even when the elaborate TV coverage visibly refuted their malafide claim. They did not give any credit to Anna Hazare and his group of social activists belonging to all sections of the nation, including poor, lower, middle and upper classes of different communities. If there was Kumar Vishwas, there was also Shazia Ilmi. Then, why this calculated attempt to give a parochial, vote-bank-type of colour to a nation-wide crusade? Thus, the evil motive is to damn and divide it on communal and caste basis.
But, the question is: Why an apolitical Gandhian with no axe to grind, who is fully focussed on the passage of a strong Jan Lokpal legislation to fight and eradicate corruption as much as possible and as effectively as possible, should be cowed down by engineered noises of notoriously vicious anti-national and disruptive elements? Shouldn't he choose members of his new enlarged core committee on the basis of the appointees' merit, dedication, commitment, selflessness and their capacity for team work, instead of looking at their religious and caste affiliation, to make it "inclusive and representative"? How could Anna decide the membership of the committee on some sort of a quota for each group? If these bigoted fellows reject Anna's choice as too little and unrepresentative of their socalled communities, what will he do? Consult them to include their names in the committee? Where will this charade end? Have the implications of such a dubious exercise considered?
But, the question is: Why an apolitical Gandhian with no axe to grind, who is fully focussed on the passage of a strong Jan Lokpal legislation to fight and eradicate corruption as much as possible and as effectively as possible, should be cowed down by engineered noises of notoriously vicious anti-national and disruptive elements? Shouldn't he choose members of his new enlarged core committee on the basis of the appointees' merit, dedication, commitment, selflessness and their capacity for team work, instead of looking at their religious and caste affiliation, to make it "inclusive and representative"? How could Anna decide the membership of the committee on some sort of a quota for each group? If these bigoted fellows reject Anna's choice as too little and unrepresentative of their socalled communities, what will he do? Consult them to include their names in the committee? Where will this charade end? Have the implications of such a dubious exercise considered?
No comments:
Post a Comment