(One) Hand vs. (Other) Hand
This article originally appeared in CRI content has now been subsumed in The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors of

On the one hand, I don’t find reports of Smt. Kiran Bedi inflating invoice of her air fare particularly upsetting. Sure, this may not look good on her, but as far as corruption goes it is least of our worries,  in fact, we can only wish for the day when this news would be scandal worthy.

On the other hand, it is “Team Anna”, who has repeatedly and aggressively argued that root cause of the corruption in India is not structural failure of Indian state but our irredeemably venal political class, and the only solution is a Jan Lokpal with extensive authority and vaguely defined restrictions, who of course has to be appointed by a panel of  ’eminent citizens’  who will be beyond reproach (or ‘doodh ke dhule’) in matter of public probity as opposed to ‘chor neta’.

Which is why it is perfectly reasonable to inquire how do they propose to resist the temptations of such Lokpal if they can’t resist temptation of inflated invoice.

On the one hand, I am mostly sure that allegations against Kejriwal by Agnivesh are hogwash.

On the other hand, how can they and their ilk be entrusted with the responsibility of Jan Lokpal, when they are not able to properly vet their own members.

On the one hand, my feelings for Jan Lokpal movement consist solely of disdain and dread, at the way a bunch of activists are  actively encouraging a self righteous and deluded middle class’s distaste for political process, effectively ceding authority state to pathological narcissism of our self loathing ‘intellectual class’

On the other hand, however, my feelings for movement aside, I am horrified by the heavy handed way UPA government is trying to muzzle this legitimate, if misguided movement, and by the under handed way its propaganda arm (otherwise known as establishment media) is trying to subvert the movement by any means necessary to ensure continuance of its monopoly on the political institutions.