1.
Arundhati Roy's article in the Hindu: "...(Anna Hazare has said) Nothing about the farmer's suicides in his neighbourhood, or about Operation Green Hunt further away. Nothing about Singur, Nandigram, Lalgarh, nothing about Posco, about farmer's agitations or the blight of SEZs. He doesn't seem to have a view about the Government's plans to deploy the Indian Army in the forests of Central India...."
2.
The insinuation that since Anna Hazare was himself held guilty for maladministration he is not entitled to lead such an agitation.
3. A rediff article on Anna Hazare and reservation: " ...Dalit, Adivasi and religious minorities are curious to know why Anna Hazare and his followers did not care to go on a fast when heinous atrocities were committed against their people ...", "...When the joint drafting committee for the Lokpal was formed and five members from 'civil society' were nominated for this purpose, not a single one of them was found to be from among the Dalits, Adivasis or religious minorities! ..."
(I'm tempted to add here that the existing categories of reservation far exceed the number 5)
If I interpret them correctly, the suggestion is that a person is qualified to demand action on corruption only if he/she is found to be squeaky-clean in absolutely all spheres of his/her life, and only if he/she also and with equal force demand solutions simultaneously to many or all of our other problems.
The first suggestion is Utopian. Great individuals don't reveal themselves in premonitions. The flagbearer of Indian great men, Mahatma Gandhi, was hardly known to the common peasantry in India until he moved back from SA (i.e. until he was over 40). Sitting in anticipation of that one divinely endowed person to take birth and solve our ills is a fruitless exercise, and hence such a demand smacks of nothing but procrastination. Since the basis of the current movement is pervasive corruption, I think it would be a good first step to concede that the person(s) eventually instrumental in mitigating it would have some dirt on their clothes. We cannot be so impossibly purist about this when we are so hopelessly accommodating about which worthless politician gets our vote. It sounds like a plot of an 80s potboiler where actors alone were enough to identify who the good and bad guys would be, so sharp was their distinction in the movie plot.
I find the second suggestion precariously rope-walking between specious and ludicrous. Let alone India, there was not, is not and will never be a country that suffers from only one problem. Suggesting that the fight against one ill assumes legitimacy only if accompanied by simultaneous and equal fights against all others is tantamount to admitting that no progress can ever be made. Such suggestions coming from learned social activists is even more disheartening. It falls flat in a very simple way: neither Ms. Roy nor the social activist have ever voiced their opinion as passionately about corruption, so they must not be serious about Adivasis or Dalits either. Such statements are made to refute claims of the movement being pan-Indian. Even Mahatma Gandhi will not pass such a stringent test, because if one considers geography about 30% of the Indian land was governed by princes during his time (who at best were indifferent to the freedom struggle), and if one considers population the set of people opposed to him then constitute two entire countries today.
Nothing good will come out of one passionate activist opposing another passionate activist over issues that have little to do with issues, more with personality. Do I trust Ms. Roy or Anna Hazare? Not necessarily. But does corruption cease to be an issue because other issues exist? A fight against corruption cannot be put down solely because someone who you disagree with happens to support it. Gauge the issue on merit, not on the words or background of the supporter.
------------
Then there is the second argument, represented by pieces like these. I call them the "academic mirror-show-ers". They exist not only in political commentary, but every aspect of life! The opinion of choice here is that the solution for every ill is "a systematic framework, a general awareness, a common resolve by everybody, a collective moral upliftment" and the likes. If anybody talks about a problem with "the system", show them a mirror to prove that the system is after all our own reflection and thus we need to improve, possibly before wanting to change the system. All noble aims, but when voiced during a movement like this, misconstrued as "maintaining status quo". Nobody can dispute that such changes will indeed eradicate all our problems. But the fact that it hasn't happened yet could perhaps mean that it is well-intended but impractical. So are there only two alternatives: status-quo or complete transformation?
=========
No movement is complete without the call to the memories of our ancient leaders, freedom fighters, etc. and associating with them. At what point do we stop limiting our memory of history to only the fighters and leaders while forgetting our past mistakes? History not only teaches us what to do, but also what not to do. Its high time we elevated our past leaders beyond the status of "keywords" and actually solve something without resorting to the "crab" mentality.
