Why I Support Jan-Lokpal, despite the criticizm

There are discussions everywhere about the anti-corruption movement. Media, office, water-coolers, coffee-shops, mailing lists, blogs, social networks etc., There is a good sized crowd (mostly educated) that is against the movement. I tried to collect some of the questions that I faced when I said that I was a supporter. I will try to answer them here.

Bills are made in parliament through debate, not by arm-twisting and blackmailing.

What is this civil society ? Who appointed them as representatives ? Is there a place for them in democracy ? In a democratic setup parliament is supreme when it comes to making laws, and there is constitution to guide. How can someone draft a law and try to arm-twist the Govt. to pass it in parliament with a suicide threat ?

Apparently, there are several examples of civil society participating in drafting and making laws. N.Ram of Hindu sites 'labor laws' and 'laws related to dowry and women's rights' as examples, where unelected members participated. So, there is nothing new here. Moreover, Govt. itself invited them for participation after the initial protest, and when acceptance of the recommendations of civil society seemed suicidal, they started playing undemocratic, anti-parliamentary cards. No one is questioning the supremacy of parliament. What is being asked is inclusion of certain things in the bill, that would be placed for discussion. If it doesn't get through the houses, or if a group of parliamentarians turn against it, that would be a different issue.

Supporters don't know what all these pals are about. So, the whole movement is stupid.

All these mindless supporters don't know a thing about lokpal or jan-lokpal. They themselves are corrupt. Many of them would have paid bribe at some point of time. Giving bribes is equally wrong, if not more. So, they don't have any moral right to shout in public after paying bribes for years and getting things done for them.

Knowledge of supporters: Is that an issue at all for one to either support or not support a movement ? Does that mean one either supports or doesn't support a movement, based on the clarity of a subset of the current supporters (even if the subset is, say 90%) ? All the information needed to make a decision one-way or the other is out there. There are enough number of forums to post any query and there are enough number of people to interact directly to get any kind of clarification needed. Second question is about supporters being corrupt (by paying bribes). Why a person, who paid bribe, is automatically disqualified to fight against corruption ? Doesn't paying bribe sound like getting victimized !!! For example, if one doesn't pay bribe, one may not get a certain license. And, without that license, one's life would be different. There are no clean and simple systems to fight against that, and still get license without loosing lot of time,money and life in some cases. So, one paid. Now, how does that disqualify one to fight against corruption ? Some would argue, If there are no givers, there wouldn't be any takers. But, if one starts this at individual level, one can't lead a normal life. Hence, the support for such mass a movement.

Dangerous trend. Remember Ramdev episode ?

This is not a good trend. Even if Hazare is a saint, what if someone misuses it ? Ramdev had already tried it with a ridiculous set of demands and there was a huge crowd there as well.

Democratic protests didn't start with Anna and neither would stop with Anna. If the demands are ridiculous, protesters will not get enough support. I did fast along with Anna a few months back. I was against Ramdev. Ramdev's list was not practical, though sounded good. There was no clarity on why he was doing. One can't do fast-unto-death with a demand: 'I want Rama Rajya'. But, Anna's fight is for a law drafted by well known people whose lives are up there for public scrutiny. So, there was no trend. Even if something comes up, that will die a peaceful death, as happened in Ramdev's case.

There are more important issues. Why waste all energy on corruption which can't be eradicated ?

Supporters are not really serious about society and its ailments. While there are so many serious evils in the society, how come corruption has suddenly become such a big problem ?

Corruption has been a problem all the time. There is no specific order among evils. All are evils. But, there is a movement now. There is a solution proposed, which has been scrutinized by many. The next step is to fight for its acceptance. So, why not fight for it ? There is a bill to work against corruption in front of the parliament for the last 40 years, which is not even being discussed, despite several scams in the last couple of years with astronomical figures. So, why not now ?

The sought after bill is not great and doesn't eradicate corruption

What is the guarantee that this bill will eradicate corruption ? We already have so many laws. Do we really need one more ? Will a stronger law really work wonders ?

Jan-lokpal is not a panacea against corruption. As it was mentioned time and again by the group that drafted the bill, it will not eradicate corruption. And, no one has any illusions about it. But, it will bring a strong law with which several corrupt would get caught, and that works as a deterrent for many. The current laws are not enough. That's why the lokpal bill in the first place (40+ years back, but never made it to a law).

Govt. is actually doing a good job. See all those big shots in Tihar. Has it ever happened ?

Why fight against the Govt. that is already taking serious measures ? A bunch of big shots are in jail. Has it ever happened in the history of independent India ?

Yes. That's really encouraging. But, how did those arrests happen ? Did Govt. do anything on its own ? Senior ministers gave clean chit to their colleagues. Even after those scams were open to public scrutiny, those big-shots were stuck to their posts for some years.

That's enough for me to get convinced and support the movement.

Book Review: Outliers

--- Malcolm Gladwell

In author's words, Outliers is The Story of Success. The story of what typically makes outliers outliers. The story of what makes a person, a society, an organization, a genre of people more successful than others. Rather, it is to emphasize the point that IQ and talent, though necessary (but not sufficient), may not always create outliers, historically. It brings out very interesting patterns from and analysis of otherwise innocuous methods and processes, which typically we take for granted as fair.

The book comprises of success stories from a bunch of independent areas researched by the author (and of course, references from works of several others), with a common theme i.e, to understand outliers.

Is there any relation between one's birth month and one's chances of making it to the national soccer team in a South American country (where people believe that national soccer team comes out of pure meritocracy) ? Yes, there is. No, it is not the work of stars. It is us. The answer is simple. The same dilemma many parents would have faced, while sending their kids to school. This year or next year ! A few months early for this year. But, a few months late for next year (After all, one doesn't plan the month of birth of one's kids, in accordance with the admission criteria of local schools). The decision made at that point may be making or marring a kid's chances to be an outlier right from there, as he would be competing with a bunch of kids either younger to or older to him (mind you, the advantage for an older kid at that age could be 25-30 %, due to the probable one year age difference among kids at that age, and the outlier there will get the best training in class and never need to look back). The author has all the statistics to put forward this theory.

Ten thousand hour rule. What is the difference among a world famous guitarist, a popular guitarist in a live music band in your favorite down-town restaurant and a guitar instructor of a school in the next block. Ten Thousand Hour rule answers several similar questions. This rule states that after a certain point, more than inherent talent, what makes a true outlier is practice. Not just some practice, but Ten Thousand Hours of practice. Author has statistics and proofs from fields as diverse as music (Mozart), software programming (Bill Joy) etc.,

Then comes one of the most hyped up things, particularly when one is still in school. IQ. Analytical Intelligence and Success. How are they related and how are they not related. The question whether IQ helps in success or not is, of course, a no-brainer. The question here is whether is that necessary or necessary and sufficient. Author discusses an elaborate study called Termites done by Lewis Terman which has several interesting things from the field of Analytical Intelligence Vs Practical Intelligence as take away.

Concerted Cultivation is another interesting theory that is discussed with examples from lives of a couple of personalities (accepted as outliers). It is generally accepted that opportunities are everywhere and one just has to look around and grab. Concerted Cultivation is about, what parents and their parenting style has to do with the emergence of outliers, and how it is not nature, but nurture, that results in outliers.

Finally, the book is not only about successes but failures as well. In this already flat world, we are getting more and more exposed to the role of cultural differences in getting things done at work. A sneak peak at how far these differences go, by doing analysis of why a particular airlines had very high number of crashes compared to any other airlines, reveals something called Power-Distance Index(PDI) and how is it different in western and eastern countries. Simply put, PDI is about hierarchical culture, where subordinates are very submissive to authority. How did it lead to more plane crashes in a particular country makes an interesting read. Apart from that, there is transmitter oriented and receiver oriented communication, again tied to countries and cultures, that too aids in making or breaking things. It seems, in some cultures the onus of communicating a point lies with the transmitter and in some, it lies with the receiver. If receiver has no clarity about the culture of transmitter (or vice-versa), the communication can never be as intended.

One important thing to note at the end is, this effort is not to undermine or downplay the impressive (unimpressive) role played by the discussed outliers at several stages of their life, by attributing their success (failure) to unfair practices (though hitherto unknown) or opportunities provided by their parents or some social and cultural differences. This is to expose the path that lead to these outliers, which may help many to act better when faced with similar or even not so similar situations.