> > > > But since you've asked me for a response, you said: > > While in the first part Ms Roy accuses Anna of trying to impose a > superstructure over the government, another oligarchy, etc., in the latter > half she is kind of accusing him of ignoring many other issues which also > warrant attention. Isn't this somewhat contradictory? > > No it isn't contradictory. The people behind the Jan Lokpal want to > ignore separation of powers, and want one body to have oversight over > all. That is objectionable. Given that Anna Hazare's ordering the > government what to do, he might as well order it to do a few more > things. That is a mix of genuine concern about his anti-politician > politics and a snarky remark. Where's the contradiction? > > Didnt appear like genuine concern. Nevertheless, I wouldnt debate this. I quite appreciated your arguments in the other thread in response to Mr. Mahesh Murthy.
> > Also, is Anna the authority on all issues, and is Anna responsible for > solving all problems in the country? She should be taking up these issues > with the government. > > And shouldn't you take these issues up with the government instead of > expecting her to solve all these problems for the country? And > shouldn't I take these issues up with the government before expecting > you to take them up? [Repeat ad infinitum] > > didnt get this. > > > I did not hear Aruna Roy speaking about her proposal until this became a > > national issue and people poured out onto the streets. > > Aruna Roy was speaking with a number of people, including Arvind > Kejriwal, about this issue before people poured out onto the streets. > In fact, there were more than ten or eleven drafts of the Jan Lokpal > bill _because_ they were speaking with Arvind Kejriwal. I spoke to > Nikhil Dey about this issue in early March before Anna Hazare had come > on to the Lokpal scene, when it was Arvind Kejriwal, Prashant Bhushan, > and SC Aggarwal who were spearheading this. > > I stand corrected. > > Well, I had a certain reason why I thought they were being jealous. With > > Aruna Roy on the timing of her proposal, and with Arundhati on the > > contradictions in her article and her rhetoric. > > If one extends your line of reasoning, all public intellectuals write > for or against a prominent issue only because of their jealousy. > > Only if you wish to ignore the fact that at least Arundhati Roy was not really discussing merits of lokpal vs other drafts, just condemning AH's approach. It must be tricky being Kejriwal or Bhushan at this juncture, given that they've publicly acknowledged AH to be the leader of the movement and that they themselves are more open to dialogue with the government while AH is adamant about deadlines and outcome (which is kind of stupid).
