Why I support Arvind Kejriwal

As a young Indian, I am really worried seeing the lacklustre way of governance prevailing in our country. The politicians, by and large change colours as soon as they are voted to power. Most of them collude with their electoral opponents and be hand in glove in looting the public exchequer. Those who don't collude, rubbish the allegations of wrong doings made by their opponents, without even having the courtesy to let a fair probe into those. 

Politicians abuse senior bureaucrats in press conferences, some rubbish allegations of financial embezzlement saying that lakhs of rupees is too small an amount for a central minister to loot, some admit of having evidences against wrong doings of opposition members but tend to keep it to themselves to prevent the other party from exposing them, some even come into rescue of others so that they get the same 'help' when they themselves are in such a state. Being a democracy what can we, the aam voters do in such grim situations?

What Arvind Kejriwal is doing is an initial step towards a final good. He, with all guns blazing, is exposing the financial wrong doings of people in power, cutting across party lines. In this process he has been successful in driving home the moot point that most, yes most of the people governing us are eating into the chunk of resources which are supposed to be utilized for our good and hence are least bothered about we, the aam janta.

Kejriwal's approach is equated to 'hit and run' by his opponents. When he targeted the Congress, they accused him of being the B-team of the BJP. When he targeted the BJP, Congressmen accused of people within the BJP motivating him against their opponents within the party. Also a senior leader in the Congress, whose words his party men themselves don't pay heed to, accuse Kejriwal of showing vengeance against Sonia Gandhi for not letting him into the National Advisory Council. All politicians continue mud-slinging Kejriwal, lest they understand that they are simply making a fool out of themselves. When one party is targeted, their opponents endorse Kejriwal's allegations, forgetting that they had rubbished Kejriwal when he had spoken against them. This proves who is tensed and whose approach actually is 'hit and run'. Moreover, Kejriwal is neither at the helm of the CBI or the judiciary, nor a member of Parliament to order a probe to bring the issues, he raises to a logical conclusion. He, as an aam admi can only ask for a fair investigation into the cases, which he has and is doing.

People accuse Kejriwal for conducting made-for-media events. What is his mistake if the cameras follow him and shoot whatever he does? Media want headlines and he very well knows to handle them and give them what they want. Is it his mistake? He should rather be appreciated for this. 

Next, he is said to be utopian in his thoughts. Is being optimistic, utopian? He thinks that corruption should be eradicated from our country to the maximum possible extent. He also goes on to say that the present day politicians are status quoists and are least bothered to change the fractured system. I feel that many people are also following the politicians and showing no signs of hope, which is, in no way good for the nation's future.

I see Kejriwal as a person who tried bringing change in the system, initially, being a part of it, as a bureaucrat. Upon realizing the limitations at work, he came out of it, joined the social workers fraternity and acted as an efficient pressure group. Further realizing the government's insensitivity, he decided to be a part of the system again and fight it from within, but this time not as a bureaucrat, but as a politician. I feel that he has given up his cozy living for the good of the people and a vision for a new India. A person with a good intention should be appreciated rather than being accused. I hence totally support his movement.

Jai Hind!

Why Shoot The Messenger?

Sonia Gandhi's son in-law Robert Vadra was in the eye of a storm some days back when India Against Corruption (IAC) activists Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan made public a case of financial impropriety involving Vadra and realty giant DLF.

The allegations made by the activists was that DLF gave properties valued at Rs.300 crore to Vadra at undervalued rates. They also said that Vadra's company with a capital of Rs.50 lakh and with no obvious revenue stream, got an unsecured interest free loan of Rs. 65 crore from DLF. Activists allege a quid pro quo where Vadra, using Sonia's political office may have managed to do favours to DLF.

The details put out in the public in a press conference by Kejriwal and Bhushan was already exposed months back by the national daily - Economic Times.

Media accuses Kejriwal of having taken an immoral and unfair stand by raking up this issue again.

Media questions Kejriwal's attack on the individual Vadra. Media is seeming to forget the fact that Vadra is no simple citizen. He is the son in-law of our nation's one of the most powerful political figures. This very fact makes the issue big. Also the fact that Vadra could have used his mother in-law's clout to make things easy for DLF cannot be brushed under the carpet.

Media accusers Kejriwal of having painted Vadra dark by not giving the latter an opportunity to clear his stand. People in media say that Kejriwal should have spoken to Vadra prior to the expose.

Let us put things in perspective. Firstly, the media should understand that Vadra has a celebrity status. It is said that he is not frisked in airports! How can such a person, especially of the Gandhi family, be contacted by an 'aam aadmi' like Kejriwal? Secondly, all accept, including Kejriwal himself that this issue was first made public by Economic Times months back. Did any of the people in the media and politics who raise such questions now, ask the editor of the Economic Times if he had spoken to Vadra before the news was published? Thirdly, 're-expose' by team Kejriwal was made only after they confirmed the facts by going through the account books of Vadra. Who in the world makes an expose after seeking permission from the people involved? Are the hidden camera exposes made by media aired after seeking permission from the people taped and showed in it?

Media also accuses Kejriwal of using his celebrity to revive this and bring this issue to the fore. I would like to ask what is wrong in using one's celebrity, to bring to the fore, an issue involving corruption tot he tune of crores of Rupees? Be it Vadra or Chandra, Sonia's son in-law or someone else's, corruption is corruption and it needs to be not only exposed but also investigated impartially.

Media should now get into the merits of the case rather than accusing Team Kejriwal for raking this issue. The media should go through the account books of Vadra and make it public. It should interview Vadra and the concerned DLF personnel.

Lot many ministers, including some of the cabinet ministers came out in the media to slam Kejriwal and render support to Vadra. None dared to speak about the case's merit. No opposition party raised this issue when it was published in the Economic Times months back. Nor did the media publish and debate it. Doesn't this raise suspicion?

It was only some days back when Team Kejriwal said this in their press conference, all were overwhelmed. All news channels had this issue being debated in the prime time. Go behind Vadra and DLF, why shoot the messenger? After all he is just asking for a fair trial to happen in this case.

Kejriwal has promised to expose another case of corruption on 10.10.2012. Eagerly waiting for that.

Jai Hind! 

Prize for honesty and uprightedness

In this polluted world, what does one get for being honest, upright, straight forward, sensitive and for being concerned about the larger good of the people? He becomes an outcast! He is sidelined by the people who are corrupt and those who want the status quo to remain.

 

I was very well aware of this treatment. A few days back I got to experience this, when I went to my college to collect my engineering degree certificate, mark sheets, conduct and transfer certificate.

 

Throughout the four years that I was in college, I had been a good student. My marks were quite good, though not excellent. I had given due respect to the teaching and non teaching staff in college, though minimal to those who did not deserve it. I had and still have extremely good relations with good people there. I had never indulged in any sort of malpractices, misbehaviour or any other activity which brought my repute, or that of the college in a bad light.

 

What I did was to raise my voice against the fractured and corrupt system prevailing in my college and against some people who were at the helm of affairs and were responsible to a great extent for creating and maintaining this situation.

 

My concerns were that my college had not been able to obtain an approval from the All India Council for Technical Education for my course even after five long years after the commencement of the course. It also could not put in place a proper system for helping the students in getting employed after completion of the degree programme. They did not even bother to find out what issues the passed out students are facing (which is imperative because mine was a new course). They did not try to communicate with the passed out students and find out what changes need to be done in the course curriculum to make it better.

 

I did raise these issues. I mailed the Dean of my college about these, filed a couple of Right To Information petitions and brought out many latent truths about the fractured system in the public domain. Obviously such acts were making the higher authorities in my college furious and irritated. Except for the fact that they did not realize that all what I did was not for my personal gains but for the benefit of the future students and the institution.

 

When I went to the college to collect my certificates few days back, as expected I was made to wait unnecessarily and was asked to meet the Dean, which I would have done even without their asking me to.

 

I went inside the Dean's cabin and he was good enough to offer me a seat. May be because I was a pass out now, and not a student. He accused me of having grudge against my alma mater. He did not like me filing RTI petitions. He hated to the core, the fact that I had taken the lead in organizing a one day fast in college to support the Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement. He told me that I was in college to study and that I should have done only that. My reply that academics was just one, but not the only part of college life and that an over all development of an individual happens only when one involves in such social causes, was not acceptable to him. At the end of a candid conversation, he thanked me, sarcastically, for my advice given to him.

 

Couple of days later I got my conduct certicate, along with other documents, in which I was awarded 'satisfactory' for my conduct. In the mean time I got to know that for all other students, even for those who had been caught for indulging in malpractices and showing misbehaviour were awarded 'good'. Anyways this was not a surprise for me.

 

I again went to his cabin with these certificates and asked him if 'satisfactory' instead of 'good' in my conduct certificate was for questioning the administration. He told me that my leading the one day fast against corruption spoilt his relationship with the university Vice Chancellor and the Registrar. I am sure that he was exagarrating the situation because I came to know from a very reliable source that the Vice Cahncellor was very happy that the students conducted such an event. Even when I went to the Vice Chancellor to hand over a declaration where many of the students, including me had signed that we shall not indulge in any form of corruption in our lives, he was extremely happy. He even placed the declaration along with many other certificates and photographs in his cabin.

 

The Dean even accused me of not giving due respect to professors and showed me a photograph of his with his teacher's teacher. He, with pride told me that he felt honoured to have a photograph even with his teacher's teacher. For that, I just told him that some years from now, I would become an IAS officer and may be the Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture and that then I would have a photograph clicked with him. I had the last word and I came out of his cabin.

 

Professors, parents and friends told me that it was too immature and childish for the Dean to write 'satisfactory' in my certificate. I pray that his narrow mind and thinking develop over the years, though it is difficult at his age of 56!

 

I would like to bring out the fact that had I wanted to save my name, I could have easily sent anonymous mails to the Dean, filed RTI petitions in my school friends' name, etc. Like others, I could have got a 'good' in my certificates. Or even, I could have waited for ten to fifteen days for the new Dean to take charge and get the certificates signed from him and got a 'good' in my certificates. The fact is that I am not bothered if I get a good, satisfactory or even bad in my conduct certificate because it is purely the sole opportunity that I had left open for the Dean to take revenge on me. I had given no room for him to screw me in any other way. At least he is happy that he could do 'something' to me. 

 

This was the first experience I had, fighting against a corrupt system. I am happy that I had a feel of such instances at this early age as my future career in the civil services as a public servant is going to be filled with such incidents.

 

As long as my conscience asks me to raise my voice and fight against the corrupt, I will keep doing it with pride and confidence, though the prize I may receive may not be in my favour.

 

Jai Hindustan!