Surely You're Joking, 'Civil Society'...

Of late, I find some people displaying openly the lack of application of intellect that one would normally not associate with an intelligent bunch, as they claim themselves to be. They rejoice in a "great victory for civil society". I find myself unable to join in their joy and can only shake my head in disbelief at their complete and mindless blindness to what seems to me, to be a set of facts, the inference from which should be patently obvious to anyone with a will to understand reality. Perhaps though, that is where it all begins to unravel.

Perry Mason was fond of saying that you can't fit your facts around your case. You should fit your case around the facts. That, to my mind is something applicable not just in legal fiction, but also in day to day life. When you see something that defies logic, it probably does and is therefore not what it seems or purports to be. So, let me jot down - for my future reference - the way I see what is happening around me today.

First let's look at the case that people are trying to fit their facts around.

The Case: Supported and then led by the mainstream media a Great Indian Civil Society Movement Against Corruption has forced government to finally act to clamp down on corruption in India.

The facts that should be looked at now and tried to be fitted around the case.

Fact 1: Through generations of a system designed to promote nepotism, the mainstream media is completely and absolutely dominated by those swearing allegiance to the party in governance and more specifically, to its first family.

Fact 2: The mainstream media has, for decades, stood steadfastly by the aforementioned party and family, through what would normally be considered indefensible and has consistently doctored and spun stories, facts and reporting to aid them

Fact 3: The media contains several members who have recently been alleged to have been acting - quite literally - as pimps in ministerial appointments among other more serious allegations.

Fact 4: The so-called representatives of civil society contained amongst other, a person who has since been alleged - through exposes - to be hand-in-glove with the government and who has been a vocal Leftist disowned by the very society of which he claims to be a 'guru' and 'swami'.

Fact 5: There has been for a long time, a man - let's call him AH - who has led small campaigns against regional and petty corruption, normally resulting in small token actions. He has now suddenly emerged as 'this generation's Gandhi' in a 'new fight for independence from corruption'.

Fact 6: The government seemed to make one blunder after another, lengthening a non-issue and allowing more and more mass support to build, before suddenly doing a phenomenal volte-face, led by the new 'scion' of their party's first family. These were token concessions made which could have been made on Day 1, but were not.

Fact 7: There was another agitation gathering steam that has lost the limelight completely on account of this 'mass uprising' of 'civil society'. That one targeted illegal wealth and demanded that details of the same be made public and the wealth be seized.

Fact 8: A day after the great victory, the Finance Minister announced that three committees have been given 18 months to study the issue and chalk out a plan on how to draft a report on the means to tackle black money and confirms that nothing is expected to even begin therefore, for at least the next 18 months.

Fact 9: The 'activist' and 'anti-corruption' mainstream media chooses not to report this piece with any fanfare - if reporting it at all.

Fact 10: The so-called 'great victory' has achieved absolutely nothing yet and beginning of any real action has not even got a timeline! What will follow is the process that would have been followed prior to the agitation as well... Quel surprise?

Now, why does it seem to me, to be something is massively amiss? Am I a conspiracy theorist? Or is it just blindingly obvious that there is something emitting a massive stink in this bunch of facts given the case that they're so clearly not supporting?

Now how about trying to create a case that does indeed fit the facts?

Case: The ruling powers, aided by the media, have allowed the public to release and vent all its energy in a 'struggle' that has resulted in nothing actioned against corruption, thereby effectively diverting attention away from the struggle against illegal overseas accounts, political corruption and the involvement of the highest offices in sundry scams and has allowed a general air of contentment to envelop a nation battling double-digit inflation.

In the whole act, there are certain outcomes that should actually be considered borderline depressing:

1. Nobody now has any more energy left to expend in the near future. The account holders on the Lichtenstein list can breathe easy.
2. The media - which had till recently been facing stinging criticism amidst allegations of insufferable bias - is now smelling of roses and being considered a powerful ally in the people's battle against corruption.
3. The first family of the ruling party has - aided brilliantly subtly by the media - positioned itself brilliantly as the ones that saved the day.
4. The scapegoats in the entire episode are actually people that don't matter at all in the electoral scenario - they're minor level functionaries (in public view, that is).
5. The media has now begun the subtle move towards again massaging public opinion to a favourable view of the supposedly 'honest' imbecile top-man and his mistress' family.
6. There are several people who actually still believe that "despite everything, the ones in power are still the best option we have."

It defies comprehension that people actually fall for all this. But it also surprises me that it surprises me.

After all, think about it. People will tell you that a chap, let's call him X, is 'an honest and good person'. Now think about whether without media intervention, you'd ever think that way about him when you look at his reality:

He works on the orders of someone else and has now done so for 7 years.
It's the people whose orders he works on, who decide who his support staff and aides shall be.
Both those he works for and those that are appointed by him, have been accused of massive corruption for years.
Scam after scam has plagued X's team and each time X has claimed that he didn't know about it.
X has not, however, ever denounced any of those accused and has never taken a single step to distance himself from his position - for seven years.

In no other walk of life, in no other corner of the world, could such a man be considered 'honest' or 'good'. Spineless? Of course! But also - at the very least - intellectually dishonest and ethically and morally bankrupt.