Winston Churchill had declared in 1920 that he refused to remain
impartial when it came to deciding between the fire - fighter and the fire.

Today those who oppose or pretend to support and then find Parliamentary reasons to oppose Anna are those who are on the side of fire — corruption.

And those lakhs of people all over India who are sitting in protest to force the government to bring in the Jan Lokpal Bill are on the side of the fire-fighter — Anna.
— KBG

"When our house is on fire, India's elite intellectuals debate politics of the fire brigade. Time to wake up to the reality of the streets," says Shekar Kapur, Film - maker, reacting to the opinions, much of it adverse, of our elite intellectuals about Anna Hazare and his movement against corruption.

The unfortunate aspect of their opinions is these “elite intellectuals” have never been victims of corruption because of their status in society and their connections with politicians and the top bureaucracy. As Anna rightly said in one of his speeches at the Ramlila Maidan, it is only the pregnant woman who delivers a child that knows the pangs of birth, not others — neither the husband, nor the doctor.

Aruna Roy, who once fought for RTI Act quitting her IAS job, has said in great aplomb, as if she is the defender of “right to speech” that "Anyone who says my view should be the only view is wrong." So saying, this lady who has since become a Sarkari sympathiser, after joining Sonia Gandhi - headed National Advisory Council, to advice the Prime Minister [so that he could be made a puppet whenever needed or controlled remotely, as if the Congress party or UPA has no confidence in the competence of the Cabinet] has presented to the Government her own version of Lokpal Bill to challenge the Jan Lokpal Bill of Team Anna. And, of course, there is already the Government's Lokpal Bill that was discussed in the Joint Drafting Committee which was a disaster as we know. There is also another Bill by Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan of Lok Satta. So, there are four versions of the Bill now.

Today Lok Sabha would be discussing all these four Bills, according to what was agreed, thereafter a resolution would be passed to send the records of the debate to the Parliament Standing Committee to examine the final shape of the Lokpal Bill. I have a feeling this also is a ruse set by the government to defeat the Jan Lokpal Bill.

Anna had already said that he was cheated by the government twice earlier — once by agreeing to a Joint Drafting Committee which was made infructuous by the government by not agreeing to many important points and second time by going on a wreckless, scandalising attack on the credibility of Anna and his team calling Anna as a corrupt person from "top to toe," alleging Prashanth Bhushan and Justice Santosh Hegde as corrupt persons. Fortunately it did not work and finally Manish Tewari, that personification of arrogance, had to apologise to Anna.

Hence, Anna said that he was not ready to be cheated by the government for the third time by agreeing to the government's offer made yesterday — accepting his three conditions. Unless they begin to fulfill those conditions, he would not end his fast.

And, as I write this at 11.15 am, true to Anna's apprehension, the government is now saying that the Parliamentary debate will not begin unless Anna ends his fast!

This is nothing but a war of attrition launched by the government to wear off Anna's, Team Anna's and his supporters' patience and force them to surrender. I learn efforts are also made by the government to create misunderstanding and a split in the “Anna Team” and seemed to succeed to a small level. However, as of now it is united and showing solidarity as in the beginning.

I have a hunch that Anna has the great power of premonition and his inner conscience [like Sonia Gandhi's inner voice, remember?] seems to be ever awake like that of an enlightened saint. Eternal wakefulness. Get it? Spiritually charged persons have this power.

This is why there is such clarity in Anna’s thoughts and words. I was impressed by his analysis of power structure and nature of power — Adhikar shahi (executive), Pudari shahi (politician), Lok shahi (Parliament) and he also remembered the Hukum shahi (autocratic power of the British Raj days).

He said the Parliament should never be undermined, but then the Parliament should act. And our Parliament has not been acting on the Lokpal Bill for the last 43 years! Hence Anna's fast. Let it be.

I was surprised that the former Speaker of Lok Sabha Somnath Chatterjee, thrown out of his party CPI for violating the party discipline, speaking against Anna on the specious ground that his movement is against the principle of Democracy. Shocking. First of all, Communists do not believe in Democracy. And being a Communist, what is he talking about? I need to be educated on this.

Similarly, I was disheartened to read about what our well-know historian Ramachandra Guha has written about Anna. He begins his article recalling a meeting about 20 years ago arranged in Delhi by the Council for Science and Environment (CSE) where he was along with Anna. What he writes is to show Anna in poor light and later he seems to wonder how Anna's stature rose to the all - India level rather undeservedly.

Out of our 120 crore people, 60 per cent are poor and Anna is poor. If the country's Parliamentary Dictatorship (not Democracy) indulges in crony capitalism and loots not only the State treasury but also the Aam Aadmi through bribes and corruption at every level of administration, people would surely support Anna. Naturally, his stature too will rise to Himalayan heights just as Mahatma Gandhi's who was not taken seriously when he landed in Bombay from South Africa. However, as result of a leadership crisis and also vacuum in the Congress movement at that point of time, Gandhiji rose to become all - India Congress leader.

Indeed, with name, fame and recognition by the government, Ramachandra Guha too belongs to that elite intellectuals' club Shekar Kapur spoke of. So naturally, Ramachandra Guha must speak about Anna the way he is speaking now.

I am surprised that being a historian, he seems to miss the history in the making with Anna at the vanguard. I am not surprised, for I had personally met him and also heard him at Dhvanyaloka of late Prof. C.D. Narasimhaiah (CDN) here some 20 years ago. I forget the subject, but I had asked him a question. His response then fitted into the opinion of Aruna Roy quoted above: "Anyone who says my view should be the only view is wrong."

Jai Hind