All the media attention and successive failure to win support from masses has hurt Anna in more ways than one. Thanks to Anna people have become wee bit more aware. He still remains a paradigm for public conduct. His ideas on against corruption, land acquisition norms, and right to recall candidates are still valid. However, a lack of vision has left the moment floundering. Anna is not above question, because no one really is, unless you are a recluse, a despot or a God.
Not too long back, Anna had committed himself to supporting parties who provide assistance in getting the Lokpal accepted in the parliament. I do not know if Anna did it out of his own volition or just gave into his friends from IAC. I can understand why Anna would not want to go anywhere near politics, but in the long term this self-righteous approach is bound to give way to a more straightforward political participation, or else lose its creditbility. There are quiet a few examples: Medha Patkar, Teesta Setlvad, and Arundhati Roy (all brillinat women). These people have been marginalised, seldom do they have the leverage to negotiate when it matters, unless, of course, when the courts intervene. Worse, people do not trust crusaders because you don't know what godforsaken land they will force you to visit!
A political movement is one of the ways the system will change. However, if you treat politics as Ganga, a river polluted with sins, then a leader of masses wouldn't know his coordinates in a democratic country. Unless you have the will and capability to purge politics of its sins, you have no locus standi to take a stand for or against politics.
We need more people like Anna in politics, individual who are willing to sacrifice everything. How else would we rid this country of rats and snakes that have infested our democracy. Real battle is about ridding the political class of corrupt and opportunists. If you can convince an honest man to do the right thing, then you have just been arguing. To persuade the dishonest tto shun uninhibited excesses, hypocrisy, and moral deprivation is the real deal.
Democracy offers a lot of options, but you cannot distance yourself from politics. The need for dialog with society at large, including political institutions is inevitable. The moment you are in public space and advocate reforms you are a politician, albeit without legitimacy. All apolitical moments will need support from business, political streams, intelligentsia, and a wide variety of stakeholders, and will also need an organisational structure, funding, managers and volunteers to become effective pressure groups. Tapping into these resources from a wide cross-section of like-minded people, including politicians is a must.
Not too long back, Anna had committed himself to supporting parties who provide assistance in getting the Lokpal accepted in the parliament. I do not know if Anna did it out of his own volition or just gave into his friends from IAC. I can understand why Anna would not want to go anywhere near politics, but in the long term this self-righteous approach is bound to give way to a more straightforward political participation, or else lose its creditbility. There are quiet a few examples: Medha Patkar, Teesta Setlvad, and Arundhati Roy (all brillinat women). These people have been marginalised, seldom do they have the leverage to negotiate when it matters, unless, of course, when the courts intervene. Worse, people do not trust crusaders because you don't know what godforsaken land they will force you to visit!
A political movement is one of the ways the system will change. However, if you treat politics as Ganga, a river polluted with sins, then a leader of masses wouldn't know his coordinates in a democratic country. Unless you have the will and capability to purge politics of its sins, you have no locus standi to take a stand for or against politics.
We need more people like Anna in politics, individual who are willing to sacrifice everything. How else would we rid this country of rats and snakes that have infested our democracy. Real battle is about ridding the political class of corrupt and opportunists. If you can convince an honest man to do the right thing, then you have just been arguing. To persuade the dishonest tto shun uninhibited excesses, hypocrisy, and moral deprivation is the real deal.
Democracy offers a lot of options, but you cannot distance yourself from politics. The need for dialog with society at large, including political institutions is inevitable. The moment you are in public space and advocate reforms you are a politician, albeit without legitimacy. All apolitical moments will need support from business, political streams, intelligentsia, and a wide variety of stakeholders, and will also need an organisational structure, funding, managers and volunteers to become effective pressure groups. Tapping into these resources from a wide cross-section of like-minded people, including politicians is a must.
