While the Government of India is investigating the source of funds of NGOs why does it not do the same about political parties and politicians?

Today's newspapers have reported that the Government of India agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation have taken up the task of investigating the source of funding of four Non Governmental Organizations that were involved in staging demonstrations against the proposed nuclear power plants at Kudankulam (I hope I have the spelling right, if it is wrong my apologies for bad spelling).  One newspaper has even connected the exercise to a speech that the Prime Minister of the country made a few days ago saying that funding for NGOs that was meant for a certain purpose was being diverted towards organizing protests against the building of nuclear reactors.  Anybody who has been reading my blog knows that while I stand for democracy and for people using their free speech to be heard, they will also know that I do not believe that democratic protest can become obstructive.  In India, in the name of democratic protest, obstructing the functioning of the government, government functionaries and institutions has become a norm.  

I have been saying that the culture of bandhs and protests where common people are put to great suffering is uncalled for.  I have also maintained that we should respect the constitution and act within the boundaries of free space that the constitution provides us with and also etiquette which reminds us of our responsibilities to fellow citizens.  I have been a critic of Babu Rao Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal for precisely these reasons.  But what is a little difficult to digest is the fact that the Government takes recourse to strong arm tactics in order to intimidate and quell any public opinion which is central to any self-respecting democracy.  

We know that corruption is rampant in this country; even among anti-corruption activists.  Kiran Bedi's falsified accounts (she says it was for a good cause, but I believe that ends do not justify means) and Arvind Kejriwal's outstanding dues to the government (public money) are striking examples of this.  Now what miffs me is that the  government will wait for someone to say something against them before launching into the past of these people and organizations.  That can definitely be called a witch hunt.  If people protest and if while protesting they have broken a law, then they should be suitably punished.  But this idea of digging into people's lives and intimidating citizens is definitely a disturbing trend one that is indicative of a legitimation crisis that the Government of India is experiencing and by extension the Indian State as well.  Fascist tendencies do not yield results.  History has taught us enough lessons about that.  The Government and the State have to overcome their legitimation deficit by winning over the confidence of the people and not by scaring them.

While one is on this subject, I shall turn my attention to the speech that the Prime Minister is supposed to have made about funding for agitations.  While the State, Government and their agencies are persecuting non-political (not apolitical) citizens, why do they not extend the same privilege to their colleagues in politics?  Why do they not investigate the source of wealth of a two bit politician who becomes one of the richest people in the country?  There are so many shining examples of this.  Why are they exempt from being investigated?  Why does the State not investigate the source of funding for agitations sponsored by political parties?  Large scale meetings, trucks for people to be transported, food for them, not to talk about booze, they all cost truck loads of money.  Why does the Government not investigate these?  I suppose that is because ultimately all politicians look out for each other and take car of each other.  It is only the common man who thinks a democracy means expression of his position that gets intimidated, threatened and forced to retract.  A bad omen, a dangerous portend to way things will be in democracies now.  Be careful and pay heed to George Orwell.  Big brother is watching you, and needless to say me too.

Why does the Mormon church want to baptize Gandhi?

It was with a deep sense of sadness that I read reports in today's newspapers that Mahatma Gandhi has been baptized by a Mormon Church in the United States of America.  I guess you can understand the reason for my sadness.  I would like to state very unequivocally that I believe in tolerance and respect for all cultures and religious practices. This is a lesson that I have learnt by reading the works of the great Mahatma himself.  But this particular wanton (and I use this expression deliberately and after proper consideration) act is something that defies all logic.  Everybody who knows Gandhi knows that he was somebody who believed in the final message of all religions.  And anyone who knows Gandhi will also know that he was somebody who strongly believed in the concept of Sanatana Dharma. The openness of his mind allowed him to grasp what he thought were great principles of many religions and Christianity was one of them.  Gandhi's introduction to Christianity and specifically the Sermon on the Mount delivered by Jesus Christ came through his reading of  Leo Tolstoy whose writings were morally instructive.  But to think that this openness of mind and the eclecticism that existed in Gandhi as far as religious practices were concerned made him something like, in this instance, a Mormon is really carrying things too far.  

One really does not know if Gandhi subscribed to Christianity in toto.  Just because he agreed with the moral aspect of the said religion does not mean that he also accepted that by birth he was a sinner, not because of some deed that he had committed, but because he was carrying the stigma of the temptation that Eve succumbed to and led to the fall of Man from Paradise.  It is rather amusing that a man who has been dead for a good sixty years and was born about a hundred and forty years ago is today being baptized.  But if you see the act of the Mormon church it can also be inferred that somehow it is trying to convey that Gandhi was a sinner and that he needed to be cleansed of his sins and if this inference can be true (and there is no reason to believe that it is false) it is obviously a deliberate attempt to mock the greatness of Gandhi.  When seen in this light, the act is hardly amusing, far from it, it can also be infuriating. And what makes the issue even more difficult to accept is that the Mormons are known polygamists and their own sect is not something that is treated with any great respect by any other sects within Christianity or by other Orders of the Christian Church.

One can probably delve into the reasons behind this act which is at its most innocent mischievous and when it is not innocent it is positively sinister.  It is sad that apart from Gandhi's grandson no political leader in the country found it necessary to protest against this. When the well known gay rights activist Ashok Row Kavi said something about Gandhi's sexuality in a talk show hosted by Nikki Vijayker on Star World, the country united as one to get that show banned.  Nikki Vijayker never again got to host another talk show.  When the great man is dead and cannot speak for himself it is perhaps time that our otherwise voluble politicians will say something of consequence.  If they do not speak up, their act will perhaps be worse than what the Mormon church did.