The activists in India, despite their self-less-ness and hard work are failing miserably. Despite years of efforts, food poverty shows no signs of decrease and the corruption in police\judges and MNC domination keeps on increasing and Military\education keeps weakening. The activists in West have been successful in reducing poverty and corruption in their countries, while we have been failing. Why? The selfless activists are failing not because they are lesser in number but because selfless activists in India are all carrying out insufficient and clone negative actions. So what is an “insufficient action”? And what is this “clone negativeness” or “clone positiveness”?
A nation and its people need 5 things to survive in short and long term
1. Zero or low dominance of foreign entities in courts, administration, Ministries, media
2. Strong Military , Local weapon manufacturing, Low infiltration of foreigners
3. Strong Maths, Science, Law education
4. Less unfair courts, low corruption in courts\police
5. Information in citizens and activists that above 4 things are must
These 5 things are very-much interdependent. Eg In a short run, using imported weapons, even with absence of local weapon manufacturing, one may manage to have strong military. But when actual war starts, the exporting nation will extract 10-100 times the price for spare parts, new weapons and ruin the economy. Further, the imported weapons will simply not work during war with country which from where weapons were imported. Eg the day US will attack India, all weapons that India imported from US and US allies like UK, France etc will malfunction. So all in all, to have a functional strong military, we need local weapon manufacturing.
Likewise, one can not have weapon manufacturing without Science\Maths education. And to have large scale engineering in the society, one needs fast fair courts and for that legal education in rank and file of the society is must. And second lastly, if there is foreign dominance, then the dominance will ensure that weapon manufacturing collapses, courts become unfair and science\maths education also weakens. And lastly, if citizens don’t have information about these core necessities, then Military, weapon manufacturing, science/maths education etc will weaken in favor of things like order/stability/culture etc and eventually Military will weaken to the extent that some foreign power will be able to dominate.
So critical issues in India as now, are the lack of above 5 items.
If I ask about five most important dangers India is facing, one would say increasing Islamic Terrorism or Naxalism or poverty or corruption or weakening education etc. These dangers are certainly worth putting in top 20, some subjectivity may be there. But most citizens are ignorant of the biggest danger India is facing – rising MNC domination and resulting weakening of Indian Military and weakening of Maths\Science education, Bangladeshi infiltration etc. And how these factors can result into “Iraqification of India” or “Liberation of India” i.e. re-enslavement of India by USA.
Why are MNC-owners so powerful? The MNC-owners have become powerful because of plus points in US administration and US courts. Many claim that MNC-owners are powerful only because they loot third world countries. This is partly correct and it is also partly wrong. The MNC-owners first became strong on their own, and only then they became capable of looting. And the loot made them stronger. A country first has to become strong before it can loot. And country needs lot of plus points to convert loot into strength. Otherwise without plus points, forget loot, even free gifts of God like minerals do not get converted into strength. Eg Libya had all the oil of the world, but even in 50 years, they could not develop nuclear weapons. So it is wrong to say that MNC-owners are strong only because of the loot. There are several strong points in their system as well which gave them this strength.
The main reason for strength is --- because of plus points of lesser unfairness in the US administration and US courts, the technicians, engineers and scientists of US\West are far more productive than those in India.
This productivity difference came into existence around 1000 AD and has been widening since then. Due to these productivity difference, the Western MNCs have become strong and more resources and more wealthy. Unless we bring that strength in India, we cant last against the West for long. But as of now, removing their dominance in India is high priority. But gaining strength by reducing unfairness is equally important.
The MNC-owners are using their surplus wealth to bribe out key officials in Govt such as Supreme Court judges, senior IAS, Ministers, Lok Ayukts and coming Janlokpals etc, own\control mediamen and thus create policies that will weaken Indian Military, destroy science/maths education, destroy weapon manufacturing in India. Almost all Indian newspapers owners and eminent intellectuals have financial links with MNCs and so these media-owners and eminent intellectuals have agreed not to highlight the problem of increasing MNC-domination. Further, they also refuse to highlight the fact that Indian Military is worsening day by day. The Indian Military is now so weak that West can dismantle it within months the day they decide to attack India. And we have only few years before the West works on to re-enslave India. The West may not attack India directly but will take advantage of attack from Pakistan\China on India. If and when Pakistan\China attack India, West will provide weapons to India, but for a price that would force us to hand over all mineral mines to West. Via control over mineral mines, the West will put puppets in Ministries, Lokpals, Lok Ayukt, Supreme Court, IAS etc which will ruin science\maths education, weapon manufacturing and also ruin grain/pulse agriculture. India will then become a giant Iraq or a giant Philippines or collection of many Iraqs and many Philippines.
Solution is : we need to improve Military, our weapon manufacturing in next few years, and as a short run measure, we need to provide guns to all citizens.
To improve Military, weapon manufacturing and provide guns to all citizens, it is we surely need to allocate funds to these activities, but funds alone will be grossly insufficient. We need to improve efficiency of technicians, engineers and scientists, and need to improve maths/science education. This needs many additions in Gazette (Gazette = code printed by Ministers Govt employees execute).
Insufficient agenda is an agenda which does not contain action items on ALL critical issues. So what are the most critical issues?
So dear non-80G-activist –-- does YOUR agenda include law-drafts needed to improve Military, expel Bangladeshies and other critical items? If not, it does NOT help Indians from saving themselves from the most daunting danger of war that India may be facing in near future. I would request all non-80G-activists to shun such an agenda and adopt agendas where “Improve Military” is one important item. And the agenda that has means to improve Military.
And agenda which refuses to address most important issue of Military, weapon manufacturing, Bangladeshi infiltration, local corruption and science/maths education is what I call as insufficient agenda. And if all activists decide to take such insufficient agenda only, then it can silently lead to death of India.
(I request the reader to re-read this section-15.3 thrice).
The usual bad professional politics is where people join political parties or do charity work to influence voters. By influencing voters, they would influence the outcome of elections and then collect bribes before or after winning election, or get financial help from the winners. This usual bad professional politics indeed resembles marketing in many ways. With hook or crook, the professional politicians or professional NGOs have to lure voters just as a salesman speaks truth or lies and sells what he has to sell.
In contrast, there is “good politics” where activists are working to reduce wrongful foreign domination, reduce poverty, reduce corruption, improve Military, improve science\maths education etc. This “good politics” is completely different and often opposite of marketing. In marketing, Seller is trying to convince Buyer that Buyer should buy something, and Seller tends to gain and maybe Buyer will also gain or he may lose. Whereas in good politics, two committed and well off individuals X and Y are trying to figure out how Military can be improved, how education can be improved, how foreign domination can decrease to benefit India and poor persons. Both X and Y very well know that neither X nor Y stand to gain anything. In fact both know that they will end up losing time, money and relations will powerful entity. Thus good politics at very core is often opposite of marketing. And so many motivational and incentive-based methods applicable in marketing do not work in good politics at all. Some degree of selflessness is essential for good politics, and this selflessness is not at all required in most instances of marketing.
In marketing, as long as company owner has money, he can hire any number of intelligent and capable people and by having commission based structure, he can minimize the fixed costs. So the limit in marketing is money, not number of committed people. But good politics is just the opposite : the most important limit in “good politics” in any country is not money but the number of committed individuals. Money will be surely needed in good politics, but it is much secondary issue – the most scarce resource is committed persons. So what\who is a committed person? I will take two rough benchmarks :
For the time being, lets confine to the first benchmark. So how many people in any India (or any country) will be willing to spend say 1 hour a week and say 5% to their annual income in reducing poverty and reducing corruption in police\courts? With no expectation of fame, money, power, appreciation in return? In any country, only 3% to 5% will be willing to spend even 1% of their incomes, and only 3% to 5% of them will be willing spend even 1 minute to reduce poverty/corruption. Hence the number of persons in India who will be willing to spend say 4 hours a week and 5% of income, in top 5 crore of the population, to reduce poverty\corruption is only about 15 lakhs to 20 lakhs in India. So number of activist-hours available are only 60 lakh to 80 lakhs per week. This limit, that there are only 10-15 lakhs non-80G-activist and less than 50 lakh activist-hours per week is the most fundamental limit, for those who want to plan good political activities. No such limit exists in marketing and professional politics. With money, you can practically buy endless hours in marketing and bad politics. IMO, all junior activists must keep this limit in their minds all the time. Every activist-hour spent on an insufficient agenda (or clone negative agenda) is an hour lost from very scarce supply of activist-hours.
So a true activist must NOT spend his time in doing those things that commercial companies based on profit motives or professional politicians based on power-motive or fame-motive will do anyway. That will be a huge waste of scarce resource. Instead a true activist aka non-80G-activist should focus only on those things which no one in commercial sector or professional polity is willing to do. IMO, the activity which a profit motive based organization will never ever do is spend money and time in fixing laws which gives no direct return. And given the MNC domination in economy, no profit minded or power minded politician will work to enact laws that can reduce MNC domination, and improve Military. So IMO, non-80G-activist should spend as much time as possible in these activities only.
And given that activist-hours or man-hours are so scarce, the last thing an activist should so is to work on a clone negative activity, because if two activist work on a clone negative activity, because that would cut-away each other’s work.
I broadly divide activists into two groups – junior activists and activist leaders. The junior activists do not have any career in activism or politics, they are not interested in any income from activism and most junior activists want to work part time only. Whereas activist leaders, like myself the author, spend long hours after activism and may have overt or covert political ambitions. Most junior activists I came across looked genuine. But most activist leaders I see IMO are fakes. Most activist leaders IMO want to make money in short term or have long term high “bad political goals”. Now how does that effect junior activist? Why does it matter whether activist leader is real or fake?
A junior activist who wants to reduce MNC domination, reduce poverty, reduce corruption, improve Military etc can either work independently or can work with an activist leader. I would suggest that the junior activist should work independently, but many junior activists believe that they need a group to work with, and so they often search for some activist leader with a group. Now if the activist leader is a fake, then the junior activist will end up wasting away all his time in activities which don’t improve Military, reduce poverty, expel Bangladeshies, reduce corruption etc at all. So if a junior activist aims to reduce MNC domination, corruption, poverty and improve Military, then that junior activist must seek out which activist leaders and activism agenda that are genuine and which activist leaders are fake. How can a junior activist distinguish between a real and a fake activist leader? One way I suggest is that the junior activist should examine all actions that the activist leader is proposing and actions he is opposing or postponing. Please note : the junior activist must look at the actions that the activist leader is opposing and postponing as well.
If the activist leader deliberately confines to insufficient and clone negative actions, and that activist leader refuses to work on clone positive actions and necessary items, then IMO that activist leader is a fake.
I request the reader to recall “the most fundamental limit of good politics” – that there are only about 10,00,000 non-80G-activists in India. So if all the 10,00,000 true junior activists in India keep on spending time on insufficient actions, inefficient actions or clone-negative activities, the there will be no reduction in poverty/corruption and no improvement in Indian Military, and India will become relatively weaker and weaker to a point that an enemy such USUK, China, Saudi Arabia etc will destroy India. So if junior activists at all wish to save India from attack or splits or internal strife, they should become aware about concepts of sufficiency and clone positiveness, and analyze their leaders’ actions.
Now how can junior activists know if the activist leader is real or fake?
I propose following way : examine the activities leader proposes. What are “activities” and what features must be present in the activities? Each activist leader proposes actions, and he claims before junior activists that if a large number of junior activists do what he says then the situation of Indians will improve. e.g.
1. Some activist leaders run schools, hospitals etc. And they claim that if lakhs of activists do what he does and asks, then “eventually” it will reduce corruption in police, courts and improve India. And AFAIK, they seldom talk about improving Military, reducing MNC domination, expelling Bangladeshies etc.
2. Some activist leaders fight PILs in courts for poor, dalits, women etc. And they claim that if lakhs of activists do what he does and asks, then “eventually” it will reduce corruption in police, courts. And AFAIK, they seldom talk about improving Military, reducing MNC domination, expelling Bangladeshies etc.
3. Some activist leaders follow cases against individual small time corrupt local politicians and officers. And they claim that if lakhs of activists do what he does and asks, then “eventually” it will reduce corruption in police, courts and improve India. And AFAIK, they seldom talk about improving Military, reducing MNC domination etc.
4. Some activist leaders file RTI etc cases to find out status of roads, public amenities etc. And they claim that if lakhs of activists do what he does and asks, then “eventually” it will reduce corruption in police, courts and improve India. And AFAIK, they seldom talk about improving Military, reducing MNC domination, expelling Bangladeshies etc.
5. I am running activism as follows : I have prepared drafts of laws such as TCP, RTR etc and I ask volunteers to ask citizens to force Mayors, PM, CMs to print TCP, RTR laws. I call it “Activism for Law Drafts”. The activism for law-drafts is aimed at changing the drafts of the laws without waiting for elections. And I also claim that if lakhs of activists do what he does and asks, then “eventually” it will reduce corruption in police, courts and improve India. And it will also improve Military and reduce MNC domination.
Now most of these activist leaders, including myself, claim that if lakhs of junior activists take the steps activist leaders propose, then one day, poverty will decrease, corruption in police, courts etc will decrease, Indian Military will improve and so forth. How correct are my and other activist leaders’ claims? Can the activities that the leader proposed ever improve Military, Technology, Economy etc to point that enemy such as China, USA will deter from attacking India? Can these activities reduce poverty to an extent that Naxals, Christianists, Islamists etc will stop getting new recruits? Can these activities at all reduce corruption in policemen and judges? The concepts of sufficiency and clone-positiveness are useful in analyzing activist leaders claims. I would enumerate the actions of various activist leaders and show whether they are sufficient and whether they are clone positive or clone negative.
As I stated the most scarce resource in improving India is activist-hours i.e. less than few lakh citizens in top 5 crore of India will be willing to spend 4-5 hrs a week to reduce the problems of India. And we need lakhs of activists who have full information of laws, have full skills in analyzing impact of changes in laws on administration and society, and communicate this information. This means that a non-80G-activists must spend several hours in understanding laws, and thinking about what changes in what clauses can impact police, courts, administration and society in which ways. Now if activists give all their time in reporting, member making, subscription collection, donation collection, demonstration of numbers, demonstration of strength etc, then obviously, they will never find any time to understand the what changes can occur in society when laws change. So all in all, IMO, activists should spend at least 90% of their time in understanding what changes in society will happen when some clauses are changed, and passing this information. And only 10% or less should be spent in strength demonstration, membership gathering, reporting etc.
A list of activities is insufficient, if -- even if all 20 lakh activists of India spend their 4 hours a week in carrying out those activities, then also, MNC domination will not reduce, poverty\corruption will not reduce and Military and Maths\Science education will not improve. Eg teaching, health care, cleaning streets, fighting individual petty cases etc
Examples : Activists are not asked to study\explain law-drafts and analyze how what changes in which clause can impact police, courts, administration, taxation and citizens in which ways, and instead activists are asked to rally, shout slogans, etc.
An activity is clone negative if time needed to achieve the goal increases as number of mutually stranger activists who carry out those activities increase !!
This “clone negativeness” may sound very counter intuitive --- if an activity is perused by more people, time taken will always decrease. But that is not always the case – if an action is clone negative, then time taken to achieve goal of reducing corruption via those activities will increase as more clones join in. This “clone negativeness” is the most important, most commonly occurring and yet least understood concept. Sadly, many actions junior activists carry out as of today in India are clone negative i.e. actions are so that as more and mutually stranger activists follow those methods, time India will end up taking to reduce MNC domination, improve Military, expel Bangladeshi etc will increase !! And very small number of activities, such as “activism for law drafts”, are clone positive i.e. as more and more mutually stranger and unconnected activists execute the actions, time India will take to improve will reduce. Understanding the concept of “clone positiveness” is the most important aspect of activism which sadly very few activists are doing. “You are not alone, and there are many who are thinking and acting like you” – can blessing if and only if you are working on a clone positive action and can be a curse if you are taking a clone negative action. So if you want more people to do what you are doing --- please ensure that your action is clone positive. If your action is clone negative, then goal will only get delayed as more mutually stranger people do what you are doing.
A best example of clone-negative method is attempt to bring system-change by election winning. In section-15.17 , I have explained why “bring change by election winning” is clone negative method.
So I request all junior activists to analyze the actions their activist leaders propose. If all the actions are insufficient and clone negative, then it is guaranteed that no matter how many activists join these activities, corruption will never ever reduce. Is the goal of activist leader to create ways and means to waste away time of junior activist? That’s a question every junior activist has to ask to every activist leader who is hell bent on executing insufficient and clone negative activities. And IMO, every junior activist should ask his leader to work on sufficient and clone positive actions. And if the activist leader refuses to work on even one sufficient and clone positive action, my advice to the junior activist would be to quit that leader and find someone who is willing to work on sufficient and clone positive actions.
Following are two questions I request every junior activist should ask his and every activist leader is :
Question One – activities at large scale
Say you, the activist leader, have 20 lakh activists willing to work as per your advices, and each willing to spend some time, money as follows :
1. All 20 lakh will spend at least 1 hr a week as per your direction
2. Some 200,000 will spend 5 hours a week
3. Only 10000 will spend 25 hours a week
4. Only 1000 will spend 50 hours a week
And the junior activists will not send a single penny to the activist leader. But as per your directions, they will spend money in pamphlets etc as follows
1. All 20 lakh are willing to spend at Rs 200 per week (apr-2012 price levels)
2. Some 200,000 will spend Rs 500 per week
3. Some 10000 will spend Rs 1000 per week
4. Some 1000 will spend Rs 10,000 per week
Now what action list you (you = the activist leader) would give to these 20 lakhs activists?
Question Two – activities at medium scale
Say you, the activist leader, have 20000 activists willing to work as per your advices, and each willing to spend some time, money as follows :
1. Say you 20000 activists who will spend at least 1 hr a week as per your direction
2. Some 50 will spend 25 hours a week
3. Some 5-10 will spend 5 hours a week
4. Some 2-3 will spend 50 hours a week
And the junior activists will not send a single penny to the activist leader but as per your direction, they will spend money in pamphlets etc as follows
1. All 20000 are willing to spend at Rs 200 per week
2. Some 50 will spend Rs 500 per week
3. Some 5-10 will spend Rs 1000 per week
4. Some 2-3 will spend Rs 10,000 per week
Now what action list you (you = the activist leader) would give to these 20000 activists?
The second question medium scale and the first one large scale. Based on the action list the activist leader rolls out, I would request junior activist to decide if the activist leader is at all interested in reducing poverty, corruption via improving the law-drafts of India or whether activist leader has zero interest in reducing poverty, corruption via reducing law-drafts of India.
Some 2500 years ago, Plato told me that in politics, one must answer the questions he asks. So I am asking junior activists to ask their leaders above questions. So what are my answers? What am I asking junior activists to do? I provided list of activities I ask activities to do in Chap-13 of this book. All actions are clone positive and sufficient.
Now lets analyze some possible answers that various activist leaders may give.
An activist leader in reality is either pro-corruption, pro-MNC-domination, anti-corruption or anti-MNC-domination and combinations. Eg The Anna is anti-corruption, but pro-MNC-domination. All junior activists I came across are anti-corruption, anti-MNC-domination. But most activist leaders I noted were pro-corruption, pro-MNC-domination. In general, most activist leaders who own 80G or 35AC based charitable organizations insist that there is no need to take efforts to MNC-domination and reduce corruption in police, courts, income tax dept etc. One reason they say so is perhaps aversion to risk. If one wants to reduce MNC-domination and corruption in judges/Ministers, then time and efforts apart, risk is important factor. There is risk of harassment. Harassments can be in form of inquiries, imposing fines, confiscating wealth, fake police cases etc. One of the most damaging step is a fake police case. If British were to act like today’s policemen/Ministers, then they would have filed a fake rape case against Bhagat Singh and used some women’s activist on their payroll to malign Bhagat Singh, instead of filing a treason case against him and making him a hero. And if a person doesn’t get deterred by police cases, then beatings, torture, imprisonment and even murder may follow. And the corrupt policemen, judges, Ministers and IAS may even resort to hurting family members of anti-corruption activists. Due to such fears, most activist leaders insist on confining to education, hospitals etc and refuse to support laws that would reduce corruption. Some activist leaders do fight against corruption in low ranking officers like Constables\PI, but most activist leaders oppose the proposals of fighting against corruption of PM, CMs, senior Ministers, senior IAS, senior IPS, etc. And proposals to fight against corruption/nepotism of High Court judges and Supreme Court judges is something that over 90% activist leaders oppose vehemently.
IMO, actions of this “pro-corruption activist leaders” is insufficient. The symptoms like Naxalism etc will not go away unless and until corruption in police, judges, Ministers and IAS reduces, no matter how many schools and hospitals we run And please recall the fundamental limit I mentioned before. There are only about 20 lakhs selfless activists in India and if all these 20,00,000 of them are asked to work on running hospitals, schools etc and then there will be no one to fight against corruption in judges, Ministers, IAS and IPS . And so corruption in judges, Ministers etc will remain intact and even increase. So the problems like poverty, Naxalism, crime etc will keep on amplifying and India may implode. So if an activist leader has proposed 100 actions to 20,000 activists in a way that not even 1% of man hours is on anti-corruption actions, then that man-hour allocation scheme is insufficient and will never improve India..
Which is why, I request all junior activists to force their leaders add anti-corruption actions in their activity list. And I request them to spend at least 1 hour a week with anti-corruption activist leaders. So I request all junior activists to ask their activists leaders is : what laws\activities do you propose to reduce corruption in policemen, judges?.
Several activist leaders insist that junior activist should spend zero time in changing the drafts of the existing laws in India. IMO this “give zero time to change the drafts of the laws” method is insufficient. The activist leaders who insist on “spend zero time in changing the drafts of the laws” often say that existing drafts are fine, we only need implementation. This is a false claim. Lack of so called “implementation” is mainly because the drafts of the laws are either unpopular or unethical or deliberately worded in a way that would ensure maximal corruption. And perhaps those who boldly claim that there is “no need to change the drafts” have really never spent time in reading the drafts of West and drafts of India. Otherwise, even a cursory glance on many drafts, such as Right to Recall, Jury System, etc would show that a reason why India ails compared to West is because of the drafts laws we have are poorly worded.
Further, consider a poor common man, who has no relatives or friends in Govt. Such a poor common man has one and only set of friends : honest officers in Govt or selfless activists or honest lawyer. And such honest officers or selfless activist or honest lawyer have only one set of tools to help the poor – the drafts of laws. Thus if junior activists spend time in improving the drafts of the laws of India, then honest officers in Govt, selfless activists and honest lawyers will be able to help commons in many ways. And so if an activist leaders is refusing to take actions to improve the drafts of the laws, then the junior activists should spend at least 1 hour a week with activist leaders who do spend time and take risk to change the drafts of the laws in India.
One of the biggest time wasting method some activist leaders use is that they will claim that they “want to change the system” but openly refuse to give drafts of the laws they propose to change the system. And when one asks for the drafts of laws he proposes to change the system, the activist leader will make 10s of excuses such as
1. I will disclose drafts after my organization has 1000s or lakhs or crores of members
2. I will disclose drafts after I become MP or MLA
3. I will disclose drafts after my organization gets 200-300 MPs
4. Drafts are needed, but right now they are not needed.
5. Drafts are useless, only political will is needed to change the system.
All this excuses for not providing drafts are frivolous and some even unethical. First, drafts are must to bring system change and whether proposed change has adverse side effects or not will depend mainly on the clauses of the drafts. If the clauses are mistakenly or deliberately poorly worded, then drafts can do far more harm than good. And so called argument that my membership must swell to lakhs or crores before I will publish my drafts is equally frivolous. To wage a violent war, one certainly does need some minimum threshold of soldiers. But to start a non-violent movement, one doesn’t need minimal number – just one is enough. All in all, those who want to change the system but provide no drafts are simply wasting away the time of activists.
Very few junior activists spend time in studying drafts of the existing and proposed laws that can reduce poverty, reduce corruption in police, reduce corruption in courts etc. The main reason is – the activist leaders are asking junior activists NOT to spend time in studying the drafts of existing laws in India/West and proposed changes in these drafts. And activist leaders are ensuring that activists are busy chasing and discussing petty issues. I seriously doubt the motives of these activists’ leaders. If the activist leader blatantly discourages discussions on drafts of the laws and discourages giving information on drafts to the junior activists, then that activist leader is most likely not interested in improving the law-drafts of India. IMO, the junior activist should ask their activist leader to schedule information sessions on drafts of existing laws of India and also good laws of the West. And if the activist leader refuses to schedule discussions on law-drafts, then the junior activists should spend at least 1 hour a week with an activist leader who is very much interested in giving information on good/bad laws of India/West.
Let me elaborate this “activism for law drafts”. The activism for law-draft means activism in which activists may or may not have a common leader they have faith in, they may or may not have a common organization, but they have faith in a few law-drafts which they want to enact. Their “leader” is not a human nor an organization, but their leader is a set of law drafts.
The activism for law-drafts is based on an observation that a poor common man, who has no powerful relatives or powerful friends has only one set of friends --- honest officers in Government and some honest lawyers. Even in most dysfunctional administration, one can find some honest officers and some honest lawyers eager to serve the commons. And such honest officers have only one set of tools to help the poor – the law-draft. Thus if activists spend time in improving the drafts of the laws of India, then all the honest officers and honest lawyers who want to help commons will be able to help commons with far more efficiency.
So “activism for law drafts” says :
1. if 20 lakh selfless activists help poor via schools, hospitals then they can bring some difference in the lives of at most 50 lakhs to 2 cr poor.
2. but if these 20 lakh selfless activists put efforts in enacting laws drafts that enables honest officers and honest lawyers function more efficiently, then honest officers and honest lawyers using better laws will be able to help all the 116 cr citizens.
I am a big proponent of activism for law-drafts. I oppose all activist leaders who oppose changes in law-drafts and insist on direct help or election campaigning only. And IMO, all the 20 lakh selfless activists must spend at least 10% to 100% of their time in asking citizens to force Mayor, CM, PM to enact some of the good law-drafts such as Right to Recall, TCP etc. And what if I have only 20,000 activists? Then I will I as these 20000 to spend all their time in meeting other activists and citizens and explain the Right to Recall etc laws, so that the information reaches other 20 lakh activists and via them it reaches to all 72 crore citizen voters.
In contrast, almost all activist leaders I met oppose the proposal that selfless activists should spend time in changing law-drafts. As per most activist leaders, the junior activists should spend all the time in running schools, hospitals, filing PILs etc and spend zero time in changing the drafts of the laws to reduce corruption. IMO, these activist leaders are farce.
Summarizing, I classify activist leaders into two broad groups :
° those who insist that zero time should be spent in changing the law-drafts.
° those (like myself) who do spend time in changing the law-drafts
Those who dont want to change the drafts of the laws are all working on insufficient methods, and their methods can never reduce poverty, corruption. We have only about 10,00,000 selfless activists and so the charity alone method will fail to improve the well being of crores of poor and victims of corruption/nepotism. And by putting selfless activists, a scarce resource, on “charity only, no change in drafts of the laws” work, these activist leaders are doing more damage to India than good.
Lets see what activities some of the “lets change law drafts” activist leaders propose. Most of these activist leaders will propose the following election oriented activities
1. They will do charity etc work, improve local governance to gain goodwill of citizens
2. Using goodwill they will gain votes for the candidate they put or candidates they support
3. Their own MPs or by influencing MPs they have worked for, they will change the law-drafts
The above method is sufficient. It would change the drafts of the laws and thus enable honest officers and honest lawyers to serve citizens. But this method is clone negative and so a time waste.
To explain, I will need to use some actual numbers. Consider a Parliamentary Constituency of 14,00,000 voters consisting of say 7 MLA Constituencies of 200,000 voters, each consisting of say 5 Municipal Wards having 40,000 voters. Now lets say one activist group comes in a Municipal Ward of 40,000 voters and there they do health/education work or work towards improving local Governance using RTI. Now due to goodwill, these activists will gain, he will gain some votes and may win election and bring more changes in law-drafts. But if one more activist comes and does same work in the same Ward, the votes will get divided and so none of the two will win the election and so their goal of changing law-drafts gets delayed.
The “winning election method” has one more very serious and unsolvable 800 year old known problem. Elections in India are single vote and first past the pole. In this system, most rational citizens rightly vote for the winnable candidate who is mostly likely to block the winnable candidate they fear most, and not vote for the candidate they think is most honest, capable. So in order to win, perception of winnability is very often must. Now lets suppose one more activist group comes in the same Municipal Ward and does education or health or improve local governance work. Since both are going to gain some votes, the division will create a correct perception that none will win. So since none will have perception of winnability, many rational voters, who rightly want to block the worst feared candidate will then vote for some other the winnable candidate. E.g. Consider a Constituency like Ahmedabad where say some half of the citizens fear Congress. Then if even if sizable of them like a third candidate more than Congress or BJP, then also the voters who scared of Congress will vote for BJP only. And as more activists come in that area, their dream of changing law-drafts via winning election would get further and further delayed.
Now with great efforts, at local level, one clone may be able to overshadow other clones and win the Municipal election. This possible because Municipal Wards are small and personal contact Is possible. So say 2-4 honest candidates who seek changes in law-drafts have won Municipal elections. Say they contest Assembly election. At the Assembly level, there are 200,000 voters spread over 2 km to 10 km of diameter. So having “personal” contacts with voters is not time viable – one has only 24 hours in a day. So no clone will be able to each 200,000 citizens. So each clone will excel within his own wards, but will not do well in other wards. So none will not be able to create a challenge against the established parties. If they cant create perception of winnability, then more voters who rationally want to stop the candidate they fear most will follow some less bad winnable candidate. But creating perception of winnability needs crores of rupees of media campaign. So even winning election at Municipal level is difficult, at Assembly level it is far more difficult. And things become more difficult at Parliament level when number of voters are 14,00,000 and diameter of constituency is 10 km to 50 km.
So now consider an activist leader who tells the 100 honest junior activists in his group that ---- “We all will do local work, then we shall contest or help someone in elections, then we will win elections or influence the winners and then we will change law-drafts”. Then IMO, this activist leader is hopelessly unaware of clone negativeness built-into elections and his method. IMO, the junior activist should realize that some two miles away, there will be another similar group following same method. And they would simply end up cutting each others’ vote shares and never be able to displace the dishonest corrupt existing MLAs, MPs. And in India, there are 1000s of such groups following this “we will do local work, then we shall contest elections, the we will win elections and then we will change laws” method. So they will all simply cut each other, and all will only end up wasting their time. This is why I said that clone negativeness is the most important concept and yet least observed and least understood issue. For past 60 years, the selfless activists have been following clone negative methods and they have wasted away 60 years.
Most activists have felt clone negativeness. They have seen and realized that when several honest activists contested elections, they all end up cutting each others’ votes making it easy for established dishonest parties to win. So many activists do try to form “unity under one leader”. This attempt to “unite under a leader” is futile. Why?
Say there are 20 lakh honest activists in India spread over 543 MP Constituencies, each Constituency having about 3700 honest activists. In each MP Constituency there are about 7 Assembly Constituency, and so each Assembly Constituency has say 500-600 honest activist. Lets say India has 20000 groups each consisting 1-2 activist leaders and 10 to 500 to 5000 honest activists spread across 543 MP Constituencies and 5000 MLA Constituencies.
Now each group will see that because of disunity amongst leaders and groups, none is able to win MLA, MP elections. So many junior activists and leaders will try to create unity under one leader. And since many will try, each will cut the other. Thus, the attempt to unite under one leader negative. This is one of the worst irony in politics --- “lets unite under Mr. XYZ” is the most divisive statement one can make, because he is opposing the person making “lets unite under Mr. ABC” statement.
Establishing “unity under one leader” has one more problem - time needed to decide which leader is too large. The unity under one leader needs trust in that one leader. One has to prove to other that he will be non-corrupt even after winning. And The God did not put stamps on people’s forehead certifying whether he will be honest even after he comes in power. Intense question-answer sessions and prolonged personal observations are must before trust appears. This is viable when group size is small in size and in area. But when two groups each having 20-100 activists spread across a large region try to “unite under one leader”, the amount of time that needs to be spent in communication to establish faith is unviably large. Many say that failure to unite is due to ego problems with leaders. That is only partially true --- there are many who put ego aside to serve nation. But lack of trust is real reason. And lack of trust is not due to lack of trust worthiness, but due to lack of time needed to prove or disprove trustworthiness.
If an activity is possible, but time needed is twice the lifetime, such activity is as good as impossible. So the activity of “lets find one trustworthy leader, and unite under him” is possible as India surely has perhaps over 10000 of trustworthy persons. But if 20 lakh honest junior activists decide to find and agree on which of the 10000 activist leader is most trustworthy, then time they would need to discuss out is several lifetimes. And so “unity under one leader” is clone negative and needs to too much time, and so it futile.
“Unite under leader” has one more pitfall – the media owners can easily destroy the reputation of the leader by throwing false financial allegations against him or 10s of other ways. Those who are trying to unite under a leader are walking on ice floor. If the enemy manages to break that ice floor, then there will be no time to walk back.
All in all “unite under one leader” is clone-negative method.
What is an organization? Individuals who have agreed to follow a set of laws inside that organization. Most organization will have something called as their constitution or law-book. Now in many countries, such as Germany, Govt has enacted laws and procedures which make constitution of a political party binding on leaders. E.g. if the Constitution of a political party in Germany says that an election candidates will be elected by inner party primary election, then Germany’s Election Commission has powers to enforce that such inner party elections do happen. Such countries, such as Germany, also have fast/fair courts to resolve disputes that come in the way. In India, no such laws and procedures exist as of today, and our courts are too corrupt and slow to have such laws. In fact, no law empowers Election Commission to force Constitution of a political party on that party leaders. And even if such law-draft exists in some corner of some law-book, Election Commission has no time and man-power to force 950 registered parties to follow their respective Constitutions. And if Election Commission were to try that today, it would only add 100s of litigation that would take years to resolve, given the fact that our courts as of today are very slow and highly corrupt. As of today, a political party has to have Constitution, and they need to give a copy to Election Commission. The Election Commission only puts these papers in files and doesn’t even bother to put these Constitutions on its website. And EC seldom tries to even read forget enforce these inner-party Constitutions.
As of now, when tickets are given in election, EC has one law-draft --- EC will allocate the party symbols to a candidate as told by the Party President. Now even if Party Constitution says that local candidate should be elected by members and even if the Party Chairman did not conduct any local inner party election, the Election Commission has no precedent and practice to enforce such inner party elections. EC simply goes by the letter of the Party Chairman.
So as per today’s laws and practices, the so called organizations are as good as personal and private property of the party leaders. So an organization is as democratic or as good as the leader it has at the apex. So “unite under good organization with good internal rules” becomes no different from “unite under one good leader”, and has same problems. It is clone negative as two good organizations both with good internal rules will cut each other and establishing trust is unviably time consuming.
I explained that method to “change laws by winning election” is clone negative. So to overcome this clone negativeness, various activist leaders try several methods such as “unite under one leader” and “unite under one organization”. I explained why both methods are clone negative as well too time consuming.
The third method by which activist leaders try to overcome clone negativeness is use of media-owners. Some activist leaders will try and succeed in getting support of newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners or other financial heavy weights. Using their support, the activist leader will be able to reach much larger number of honest activists, and thus create a much bigger group than those who don’t have support of media-owners and elitemen. This method will work. But there is a major pitfall – what if the newspaper-owners and TV-channel-owners have dishonest agenda? I do not believe that all newspaper-owners and all TV-channel owners have anti-India agenda. Some may be genuinely good, as we see a few good people everywhere. But most TV-channel owners and most elitemen have nefarious anti-India agenda, because they are dominated by MNC\Missionary funding. Now if the activist leader has overt or covert dependence on newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners or some elitemen, who is anti-India, then it can backfire.
In fact, only way clone negative methods have moved ahead is when one activist-leader gets projected by newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners. Eg Anna became The Anna only after MNCs decided to use all its TV channels to project Anna. Mohanbhai-I became great leader only after British deployed all its media funds to project Mohanbhai-I as great leader. So far, an activist leader never became great leader, or became great leader ONLY after TV-channel-owners or newspaper-owners or elitemen pulled money and media to create his monopoly on media and push out other activists.
So those who think that TV-channels owners etc are all honest may approach them. I personally think that activist leaders should not take any help from TV-channel owners and newspaper-owners and other assorted elitemen. IMO, the decision to take help from media-owners will backfire and will hurt India.
So far, I have explained why
1. An activist leader who refuses to oppose MNC domination, corruption in judges/Ministers etc, and insists on confining to schools, hospitals, local work is following insufficient method. He is like a doctor who is not giving most required medicine to the patient.
2. An activist leader who opposes MNC domination, corruption, but refuses to work to change the law-drafts is also following insufficient methods. He too is like a doctor who is not giving required medicine to the patient.
3. An activist leader who proposes that they will run charities, do local work etc, get votes, win election and then change law-drafts is following a clone negative. He is like a doctor who is yet aware or unaware, that the medicine cant work at Tahsil, District, State or National scale.
4. An activist leader who is trying to “unite activists under one leader” is also unaware that his method is clone negative and that communication time needed to agree is more lifetime. Those who give call for unity are causing biggest divisions.
5. An activist leader who is trying to “unite activists under one organization” is also unaware that his method is clone negative and his method needs too much communication time.
6. An activist leader who tries and succeeds in getting support of newspaper-owners, TV-channel-owners and is trying to “unite activists under one organization” may work, but only if the TV-channels who are helping him are pro-commons. If the TV-channels who are helping him are anti-common then the step to take support from them will backfire. As of now TV-channels in India are run by MNCs and Missionaries. And so a leader who plans to expel
So one after another, I have been de-constructing methods that the various activist leaders in India are using by showing that their methods are insufficient or clone negative or both. So is there a method that is clone positive and also sufficient? If yes, what is that method? Yes. There does exist a sufficient and clone positive method. The method is to initiate so called “multi-leader, no centralized leader, mass movement for some law draft” . This “multi-leader mass-movement (aka aandolan) for law-draft” is sufficient as well as clone positive. I have explained this in the next section.
Mass movement (aka aandolan) is event when thousands or lakhs or crores of citizens India are forcing Mayor, CM, PM to make a change in the Government. The change demanded can be expelling (or bringing back) an officer or a Minister OR the change demanded can be “print a draft in the Gazette”. Of this, the former one, namely change in person is grossly insufficient and I am not interested in it. But demand to enact a law-draft, depending on the draft of the law, can be sufficient. If the law-draft is well written, then enacting that draft can bring several long lasting positive changes in the lives of citizens. One such example is the Ration Card System (aka Public Distribution System). The drafts of the Gazette Notifications that created PDS in 1940s were good that the problem of hunger deaths nearly vanished in India from 1945 till today. Another example is mass movements which started for land reforms. The movement partially succeeded and partially failed. They failed because citizens did not create a draft themselves but asked MLAs/MPs to create drafts. The MLAs and MPs took bribes from landlords and created weak drafts, and so land reforms did not happen to fullest possible extent.
The “mass movement for system change without law-drafts” have been total failure. The worst example is 1977 where Janata Party was a mass movement led by Jay Prakash Narayan and one of the key goal was bringing Right to Recall. The mass movement succeeded in getting 2/3rd majority in the Loksabha. But since there was no draft of the proposed Recall law-draft, the MPs claimed that they need time to write law-draft and thus spent away 2 years and then cancelled the plan of enacting Right to Recall laws completely. The movement was a complete failure.
The “activist-guided draft-led mass movement (andolan) for law-change” that I am proposing is as follows
1. The movement must be proposed GN-draft-led, not leader-led and also not organization led. All the activists involved in the mass-movement must have “proposed Gazette drafts” with them. All activists need not have same draft and an activist may have more than one draft, but every activist must have clearly written drafts with him, that he fully understands and stands for. And his activities must be 100% draft oriented and activists must have no other political goal other than getting drafts printed in the Gazette. To be specific, in my case the drafts are TCP-draft, RTR-PM-drafts etc .
2. The movement must be activist-guided, not leader guided or organization-guided. The activists should answer all questions he gets from fellow activists and citizens on how own. And he must not take name of the leaders while answering questions. And for that understand the drafts he is carrying and should explain the proposed law-drafts to the fellow activists and citizens. The activists must not ask citizens and fellow activists to have faith in drafts because the draft is written by some “very learned person”. The activist and the draft must stand on their own feet --- not on leader’s image. The activists and citizens must not accept activist to give answer like “ask my leader” or “I will need to take permission of my leader”. The activist must answer everything on his own. IOW, the movement is activist-guided and not leader-guided.
3. The movement must be activist-funded only. There must be no donations or media sponsorship from non-activists. And particularly no donations in cash or in form of media-sponsorship from the elitemen who fund almost everyone in power. Each activist will distribute pamphlets, give newspaper advertisements and contest elections with his own money and not take or give any donations. Because if donations are taken, then the one who gives donation will become the leader and the draft will cease to be the leader !! Since the draft must be the leader, the donations must not exist. And please note --- not only activists must not take money from elitemen, they should also not ask elitemen to purchase any media sponsorship.
4. The activists should ask all CMs\PM to print the proposed law-drafts in Gazette and should also ask all activists and citizens to ask CMs\PM to print the draft they like in the Gazette. In my case, the drafts are TCP-draft, MRCM-draft, RTR-PM-draft etc
5. The activist should ask every activist, leader and citizen to disclose their positions on the proposed drafts and should publicize their positions. Further, every activist should ask every fellow activist to ask his leader to disclose his position on the drafts and publicize it. Eg I ask every IAC activist to request their leader Arvind Gandhi and The Anna whether they support/oppose the proposal to print RTR-Janlokpal draft clauses, and disclose their answers as Facebook status.
6. The activists should not seek any cooperation from media except Doordarshan, The activists may and should give paid advertisements in any media and may ask for lower rates (e.g. rates for public notices and death notices are lower than commercial ads), but should never ask for free coverage. But asking for their news cooperation should be avoided. In fact, I have decided to boycott all mediamen except Doordarshan., and confine myself to advertisements only.
7. And above all, making official request to Ahimsamurti Mahatma Udham Singh. The activists must ask (and request fellow activists and citizens to ask) Ahimsamurti Mahatma Udham Singh to verify if majority voters in India support the draft, and if they support the draft, then convince CMs\PM to print the drafts in the Gazette.
The above method is sufficient and clone-positive. If the goal is to bring changes in system via election-winning, then the method is hopelessly divisive and clone negative, and throws 5 year waiting period. And if the goal is to bring change in system without waiting for election, but forcing existing Mayors, CM, PM to print drafts, then method is clone positive and also has no waiting time.
The “leaderlessness” and organization-less-ness is important. i.e. there may be 100s of guides but none should have administrative control over other, and non should have monopoly. If the whole movement is under one or a few leaders, then established Indian and foreign elitemen can easily kill, force or bribe out those leaders or his advisors or his deputies. Or will implicate the leaders in false allegations and destroy their images. However if thousands or lakhs of activists have only law-draft as an item, and leads to give information, then the Indian or foreign elitemen will see that killing or bribing out that leader will not help anymore.
In the leaderless multi-lead mass movement, the law-draft is the leader and the citizens are deputy leaders. The citizens can change the draft and thus change the leader. But the leader cannot change itself and later become corrupt.
How draft-lead activist-guided leaderless mass-movement for system-change is clone positive
The “leaderless draft-lead activist-guided mass-movement for system-change” is clone positive as more people join with demand for same or even different laws, they don’t cut each other but only add the strength.
For example consider my proposed leaderless mass movement to force PM, CM to print “Right to Recall PM, CM, judges etc” law-drafts. I use several actions to create this mass movements, and I have described these actions in the previous chapter titled as “With just 1 hour a week, YOU can help bringing RTR laws in India”.
I can explain that each action is clone positive. I will put a detailed explanation showing that each and every action item is clone positive on my website soon. In this chapter, I will explain some of the items.
1. Say I contest Loksabha election where-in my goal is not to win election but to ask maximal citizens to ask existing MP, MLA, Mayor etc to enact Right to Recall over PM, CM, judges law-drafts. Say using newspaper advertisements etc I reached 100,000 citizens and gave them information about RTR over PM, CM, judges law drafts. Say one more person contests election in same constituency on RTR law-drafts. Then due to his efforts, the information will reach several thousand more voters and thus possibility that RTR laws would come increases. Now we may cut each other’s votes but since goal is not to win election but to ask citizens to force existing PM, CMs etc to pass RTR laws that goal had been positively served by both contestants. Thus election-contesting to force existing PM, CM to print a draft in Gazette is clone positive.
2. Say I am distributing pamphlets explaining RTR drafts If one more activist distributes the pamphlets, then possibility of getting RTR laws signed increases. Thus, pamphlet distribution is clone positive. Same way, giving advertisement in newspaper is clone-positive.
3. Now say a group of activists-A are campaigning for Draft-A And another group activists-B comes and starts campaign for Draft-B. Then either of activist-A can subsume Draft-B or activist-B can subsume draft-A or some third group-C will come and put a draft-C which covers both A and B. And the fear that activists-A will add Draft-B, and fear of vice versa or fear that activist-C will come and subsume both Drafts-A and Drafts-B will ensure that each group creates a subsuming draft. Upon subsuming, the movements will add up. And even if two drafts remain un-united, a citizen can support both drafts and thus there will be no division. Whereas a citizen cannot vote for two candidates. Eg I have been campaigning for Right to Recall drafts since 1998. In Oct-2010, Anna’s group came and started a campaign for Janlokpal draft. I immediately drafted a page titled as “Right to Recall over Janlokpal” and asked activists to add that page So movement for law-draft is clone-positive.
I have listed some 50-100 actions activists can take to enact a mass movement for RTR laws in chap-13. Each and every action I have listed is clone positive !!! In a separate web-article, I will explain that each and every one of them is clone positive action. I request readers to scan all the actions and if he has any doubt that any of the proposed action is clone negative, then please feel free to post a post in http://www.facebook.com/groups/rrgindia/ or call me at 98251-27780 .
The leaderless draft-lead mass-movement for system-change (i.e. printing draft in the Gazette Notification) is an event where thousands or lakhs or crores of citizens India are forcing Mayor, CM, PM to print a law draft. The activist or citizen has decided not to follow anyone and has only agreed to apply full force in enacting that draft. The draft is their leader.
This method is time-efficient compared to “mass movement under a leader”. Because one has to spend immense time in convincing a person that Leader Mr. XYZ is a good person. And even when follower Mr. ABC is convinced that Mr. XYZ is a good leader, then it is not easy for Mr. ABC to convince Mr. DEF, who has never seen or spoken to Mr. YXZ, that Mr. XYZ is a good leader. Whereas if Mr. ABC has understood a law-draft, he can easily convince Mr. DEF that the law-draft is good and Mr. DEF can take it further. So a “leaderless movement for law-draft” is more time-efficient than a “movement under a leader”.
In many methods such as running charities or building new political party, everyone needs to give N hours a week on a continuous basis. Break in continuity washes away work done in past. This is important plus point of “mass movement for TCP law-draft” that lack of continuity will not wash away the work done in past. Because in “mass movement for TCP law-draft”, the main activity is convincing the fellow activists and citizens about the merits of TCP, MRCM, RTR etc laws. Once a person is convinced, break in continuity will not un-convince him. Whereas in charity work and building new party, one has to work almost everyday. If there is a break in continuity in one organization, there is a possibility that supporters and activists will move away to other organizations. This is merely an effect of clone-negativity : when one clone takes a break, a competing clone may end up destroying organization he has built.
In real world, activists have tens of important tasks. And so break in continuity is inevitable. And activist will work for a few weeks and then he may not be able to spend time for next few weeks, and will be ready to work again after his personal crisis have been taken care of. In such case, when he resumes, capital created by previous activities should not get washed away. The “mass-movement for TCP law draft” has this plus point. The main activity is to explain the fellow citizens the merits of TCP, RTR and MRCM laws. And once a person is informed about these laws, some capital is created. This capital doesn’t get washed away if the activist takes a break of a few weeks.
I am requesting all junior activists as well as activist leaders to prepare the DRAFTS of the laws they want. And I am requesting them to see if their method to enact those law-drafts is clone-positive and time-viable. Of all methods I studied, “leaderless multi-lead mass movement for a law-draft” is most clone positive and most time efficient, and least prone to subversion by enemy.
In some other article, I will show that TCP is the most efficient law-draft of all possible law-draft. As a simple proof, I will request the reader to write draft of the law-draft which he thinks is more efficient than TCP. And then I will request him to add TCP clauses below his draft as a new section. Now is the new draft better or worse in his opinion?
This chapter and next chapter is dialogue with activists,. In this and next chapter, I have tried to show that my proposed method (that activists should ask citizens to force PM, CMs, Mayor to pass TCP law-draft) is less expensive and more efficient than most other methods other activist leaders are proposing. Because my method is sufficient as well as clone positive. The purpose to explain this is not to ask activists to leave their organizations and join mine. But my purpose is to convince activists that they should ask their activist leaders to add TCP, RTR etc in the agenda of their groups.
Why do I ask activists to add RTR etc in their groups rather than leave their groups and join my groups? Because asking activists to add TCP, RTR in their organization’s agenda is clone positive, where as asking activists to leave their organizations and join mine is clone negative and hence lesser in efficiency.
Likewise, I seldom ask voters to stop voting for whom they voted last time and vote for me. I always asked them to ask their favorite candidate to add TCP, RTR in his manifesto. This again is clone positive step and hence more efficient.