I do not know whether Anna Hazare thinks he is above the Indian Parliament, but most definitely his Team Anna teammate Arvind Kejriwal has claimed so. It is distinctly possible that the copy of the Indian Constitution that Kejriwal has starts off, “I, THE CITIZEN OF INDIA, …” in the preamble.
Kejriwal, letting the cat among the pigeons, said that Anna, no less than the other citizens of the country (when, in fact, he wanted to claim more than any other citizen of the country) is above the Parliament. He took implicit recourse to the starting strains of our Constitution that proclaims, “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, …”
That is, every citizen is above the Parliament, as the Constitution enjoins equality of status and opportunity. If Anna Hazare is above the Parliament, so is L K Advani. So is Raghuram Ekambaram.
Kejriwal used this nonsense point of argument as a ruse to deflect any serious discussion on the ongoing tussle between Team Anna and the government. He knew that TV is not the medium for serious discussion and debate and that gave him the opportunity to throw straws in the wind to check the breeze. And, unfortunately for him, Advani caught hold of one of the straws!
Today’s paper, Hindustan Times, says that Advani has repudiated Team Anna’s stand against the supremacy of the Parliament. Of course, he would do that because he has not given up his ambition to sit on the Prime Ministerial throne. And, of course, the paper will play up the message, as it duly did. Even so, I think Advani is more correct than Kejriwal.
Democracy is not one-size-fits all. Switzerland has direct democracy, run by referendum. In that system, if a citizen claims his right to make a law, it is OK as it will be run through a referendum. What Kejriwal is looking for is a limited edition direct democracy, pushed through the representative institution, the Parliament. A mix-n-match. It is unfortunate Kejriwal is not peddling his ware in a fashion store.
But, good or bad we are stuck with representative democracy, of a particular kind. It is different than what is obtained in France, which is distinct from that in the UK (which does not have a written constitution as a single document), and on down the line, encompassing even the exceptionalist United States.
Switzerland is a tiny country. Yet, its experience with direct democracy is not an unalloyed blessing. It can tend towards unmediated majoritarianism, like it did during the discussions on building mosques. What Kejriwal is demanding, from this perspective, is direct democracy, but available only to Anna Hazare. Even more pertinently, access to Anna Hazare is available only through Arvind Kejriwal, the doorkeeper.
If Kejriwal wants direct democracy, I have no problem in letting him have it, but only after he throws open the door to everyone. This is what Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander were arguing about discussions with the Standing Committee.
What Kejriwal is saying, but without uttering the words, is this: “Anna Hazare, and as his proxy, I too, have privileged access to law making in this country. No one else does.”
If he had had his way, the last words of the preamble to our Constitution would have read,
… AND GIVE TO MYSELF, AND AS A COROLLARY TO YOU TOO, THIS
CONSTITUTION.
(sd/-)
ANNA HAZARE
Raghuram Ekambaram
Kejriwal, letting the cat among the pigeons, said that Anna, no less than the other citizens of the country (when, in fact, he wanted to claim more than any other citizen of the country) is above the Parliament. He took implicit recourse to the starting strains of our Constitution that proclaims, “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, …”
That is, every citizen is above the Parliament, as the Constitution enjoins equality of status and opportunity. If Anna Hazare is above the Parliament, so is L K Advani. So is Raghuram Ekambaram.
Kejriwal used this nonsense point of argument as a ruse to deflect any serious discussion on the ongoing tussle between Team Anna and the government. He knew that TV is not the medium for serious discussion and debate and that gave him the opportunity to throw straws in the wind to check the breeze. And, unfortunately for him, Advani caught hold of one of the straws!
Today’s paper, Hindustan Times, says that Advani has repudiated Team Anna’s stand against the supremacy of the Parliament. Of course, he would do that because he has not given up his ambition to sit on the Prime Ministerial throne. And, of course, the paper will play up the message, as it duly did. Even so, I think Advani is more correct than Kejriwal.
Democracy is not one-size-fits all. Switzerland has direct democracy, run by referendum. In that system, if a citizen claims his right to make a law, it is OK as it will be run through a referendum. What Kejriwal is looking for is a limited edition direct democracy, pushed through the representative institution, the Parliament. A mix-n-match. It is unfortunate Kejriwal is not peddling his ware in a fashion store.
But, good or bad we are stuck with representative democracy, of a particular kind. It is different than what is obtained in France, which is distinct from that in the UK (which does not have a written constitution as a single document), and on down the line, encompassing even the exceptionalist United States.
Switzerland is a tiny country. Yet, its experience with direct democracy is not an unalloyed blessing. It can tend towards unmediated majoritarianism, like it did during the discussions on building mosques. What Kejriwal is demanding, from this perspective, is direct democracy, but available only to Anna Hazare. Even more pertinently, access to Anna Hazare is available only through Arvind Kejriwal, the doorkeeper.
If Kejriwal wants direct democracy, I have no problem in letting him have it, but only after he throws open the door to everyone. This is what Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander were arguing about discussions with the Standing Committee.
What Kejriwal is saying, but without uttering the words, is this: “Anna Hazare, and as his proxy, I too, have privileged access to law making in this country. No one else does.”
If he had had his way, the last words of the preamble to our Constitution would have read,
… AND GIVE TO MYSELF, AND AS A COROLLARY TO YOU TOO, THIS
CONSTITUTION.
(sd/-)
ANNA HAZARE
Raghuram Ekambaram
11 comments:
It is sad to see the movement descending into chaos at each step: Anna says he is educating voters about the Congress ’ failures’; his next best, Kejriwal declares Anna is above parliament as everyone else is , which as you say, includes Kejriwal. But does he not realize that Parliament represents the collective will of the citizens of India; and placing an unelected individual above Parliament is a neat recipe for dictatorship. Next, Kejriwal’s followers beat up a man for asking irksome questions at a rally in Hisar. Who knows what their followers would in turn be up to?
The seeds of self-destruction have begun to sprout. I wish the civil movement tries to retain a sense of balance.
Regards
Thanks Sreenivasarao sir; even sitting at a distnace, you catch the most salient points. I am doubly blessed.
The only exception I may point out is it was never really a civil movement, in the sense of aggregating from grass-roots. If I know my history right MKG's Dandi march had a small crowd at the start.
I wonder how many people will walk with AH as he traverses the five states where polls are scheduled in the near future. At each location, a crowd may be amassed, but it would stay local - this is what I suspect. Let us see.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Arvind Kejriwal is confusing himself as well as others between the theoretical notion about the supremacy of the citizen in Indian democracy and the practical and necessary subordination of the citizen to the legal systems. I don't think he is unaware of the distinctions; he is doing this intentionally. He is trying to win more accolades from the citizens. But what will he do if and when he really gets the power?
Arvind Kejriwal is confusing himself as well as others between the theoretical notion about the supremacy of the citizen in Indian democracy and the practical and necessary subordination of the citizen to the legal systems. I don't think he is unaware of the distinctions; he is doing this intentionally. He is trying to win more accolades from the citizens. But what will he do if and when he really gets the power?
I do agree with you..But with corruption reaching unimaginable levels ,this type of polarization is bound to come..All activists across the globe behave this way..
matheikal, he can win accolades only from uninformed citizens, who do not comprehend the type of society and systems we have chosen for ourselves. So, what you say translates into is this: AK will rather the people stay politically and governance-wise in the dark. That is no progressive stance. No dark corner is going to light up the room.
Raghuram Ekambaram
DS sir, but this degradation happened within six months. That is breathtaking. rather, suffocating.
Raghuram Ekambaram
i am surprised that kejriwal
did not make this statement earlier !
It was coming..
And, I too saw it coming, pala ... right from the beginning, I was waiting for the day the dictatorial tendency to manifest itself ... so sad, ain't it ...
Raghuram Ekambaram
Raghu, I am happy with every blabber, they reveal themselves how hollow they are, actually I want them to get into the UP fray after succeeding in Hissar, that would undo them
Balu, you have way too much faith in the thinking prowess of AAH (Acolytes of Anna Hazare). I don't. Hope you are right.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Post a Comment