about the news from India

The citizens have taken to the streets again – this time the country is India. Slightly at odds with the ‘go-get-them’ approach that has permeated the middle class in recent years, the people have raised the issue of corruption within the government and the movement has gained momentum with the usual theatrics that Indians have perfected over the years – hunger strikes, civil disobedience, rhetoric, songs, statements and counter-statements.
A bill to counter corruption within government ranks was first tabled in 1968, as India attained the age of majority. Since then it has been brought out, dusted off and discussed at irregular intervals. The latest bout has garnered more support than previous attempts and it would be interesting, sociologically speaking, to analyze the reasons why.

The social networks have allowed people to say things they would not otherwise say to the general public, and the overall sense of being a part of a movement, coupled with a bout of nationalism mixed with a soupcon of naivete have contributed to previous apathetic, apolitical people heading out to be a part of various demonstrations.

At the centre of the controversy are the contents of the bill. It seeks to create a Super-Body that will watch over the government and it’s officials and be accountable to the highest ranking bureaucrat in the land. The government is seeking to exempt the Prime Minister and the ministers and the judiciary from the provisions of the law. The popular movement has banded under the chief activist.

The Slo-Man, however, is not convinced that such a body would be successful. It will also be a government body, notwithstanding the attempt to make it accountable not to the Prime Minister but to the Cabinet Secretary, the highest ranking civil officer. The thinking is that this reporting structure will allow the Super-Body to function without let or hindrance in its efforts to police the government – comprising the civil service, the judiciary and elected members of parliament. The Slo-Man cannot comprehend how such a body will help. A seven-member body has been proposed and of course there will be further debate about who gets to be on it. But the seven member body will have to respond to complaints.

Anyone who has seen a defect database will appreciate the point the Slo-Man is making. A database of the scale that would be needed boggles the mind. In a country that adopted redtapeism and gave it maturity on a scale unprecedented, the Slo-Man will wait to see what methods are proposed for raising complaints.

Assuming that a citizen is able to log his complaint, the complaint will have to taken up by someone, possibly categorized (there are provisions for penalties for “frivolous complaints”) and then investigation can commence. The Slo-Man assumes that the seven-member body will not actually perform the executive function of complain analyses, categorization, investigation and ultimate disposal. The Slo-Man can see the impeding creation of a “complaints department” and gainful employment for a host of civil servants.

And when that happens, who guarantees that these officers are incorruptible? In a land where baksheesh is normal, a tipoff to the complained-against and a possible categorization of “frivolous is obtained.

Indeed who polices the Super-Body? The Slo-Man can see a time when the sons and daughters of the members of the Super-Body become super-children, able to move without impunity into bullying, influence peddling and in extreme cases criminal activities.

Animal Farm?

Or maybe the Slo-Man who lives thousands of miles away on the other side of the world is wrong. He hopes, fervently, that he is indeed mistaken, uninformed and somehow this movement will finally reduce corruption, for removal is impossible.

The Slo-Man waits and wonders – maybe readers can enlighten him.

about the "most powerful leader" in the wwuurld

with apologies to Clarkson, May and the Hamster, but recently the Slo-Man has been gorging on a steady diet of Top Gear, topped off with James May's 20th Century and James May's Big Ideas.

The Slo-Man's LifeLongBestFriend (LLBF) reported rumblings about Barack Obama and his (already) failed promises. The LLBF saw distress in the social media and on the talk shows and it made him thoughtful about the end of the lune de miel.

When the people vote for "change" and most people say they do, do they really want change? Do they believe the leaders they voted for will be willing and able to fulfil their promises? Well before the election results the Slo-Man recalls reading an article about the promises Obama would / would not be able to keep if he came to power. And the LLBF (who has a soft corner for BBC comedies and word play) murmured "Yes, Prime Minister". That biting satire from Jay and Lynn brought into focus how the head of state typically flies by the seat of his pants, blown this way and that by the exigencies of each political reality.

Now the Slo-Man notes that polls reported that about 90% folks in America supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001. Current support is much lower, ( to use an understatement ) and the Slo-Man wonders, what did these people think would happen? Sending a family member to war, is what people voted to do.

Almost 9 years on, there is still shock when "roadside bombs" kill soldiers. That is a modern war-zone. Maybe some felt that an underdeveloped country would be easy to control by a well-equipped army. Lessons from Indo-China? To reduce loss, how about increasing the use of unmanned drones ? But there are folks who object to unmanned drones.

It seems to the Slo-Man that there are always folks who object. Some will object to the fan-dance and some will object to the fan, but object they will. So what is the leader of the Free World ( now there's a point to ponder in a later entry) to do?

What is the answer, pull all soldiers back home, leave the tribal countries be, give up on finding those Weapons of Mass Destruction and that great, bearded benefactor of the defence contracting companies ?

Alas, poor Barack! He's done what any great leader would do, taken the HealthCare debate off-camera, despite pleas to put it on C-Span as he promised. It's not easy being a political leader with the eyes of the world daring you to blink. There are so many who are strident in their one-sided, I-could-do-better, un-informed-and-proud-of-it vituperation and just one elected leader.

The Slo-Man signs off secure in the knowledge that he has no answers and will never be a politician and the LLBF nods in agreement. He's left shaking his head sadly. His sympathies go out to the families who are actively involved and those whose lives are forever changed.

about H1N1

and conspiracy theorists especially after getting an email the other day. The presentation highlighted the lack of lethality of H1N1 relative to other diseases that will wipe out mankind. A conspiracy theory was raised largely due to Rumsfeld's 1997-2001 chairmanship of a Tamiflu manufacturer.

Leaving the nature of such viral (the Slo-Man apologises) emails for another time, the Slo-Man is left with a sense of unease.

Are the folks in power really in power? Do they really have control over the situation? Is this a reversal of the 80's when AIDS was largely ignored by them? Are they over-reacting in compensation?

The Slo-Man is always interested in conspiracy theories, he believes Area 51 may conceivably have unexplained and secret alien spacecraft. However, he did see a show about 9/11 recently and was stunned to see a collection of young men in their late 20s or early 30s with a collection of MacPro's cutting and analysing video footage frame by frame to prove their point.

And it left him wondering - who the heck pays them to spend their time doing this? Who funded the computer equipment? Now there's a conspiracy theory for you.

Go forth and wonder......