14 Dear activist, USC-aandolan will take LESS time than election-winning

(A detailed version of this chapter in notes #301.017 on http://facebook.com/mehtarahulc )

Download this chapter 14 : http://www.righttorecall.info/301.pdf

14.1        The purpose of this chapter

A central question to activists who want to see the TCP-draft, RTR-drafts, MRCM-drafts, JurySys-draft etc in Gazette is : how can activists force PM\CMs to print all these drafts in the Gazette? I want to explain to these pro-RTR activists that least inefficient way to force PM\CMs is using “Ahimsamurti Mahatma Udham Singh centric draft-led mass-movement”. And the most inefficient way is by trying to elect honest men in Parliament and Assembly and hoping that they will print RTR-drafts in Gazette.

I do not guarantee that activist-movement and mass-movement on RTR will be successful or even materialize. Nor can anyone prove that election-based approach will be successful in bringing RTR-drafts. Anyone who gives such surety about future on any major political event is a liar. Asking questions like “can this approach guarantee success in politics” is like asking “will this medicine save a patient in critical condition”. If patient is severely ill with severe diseases, then no medicine can give 100% surety and same way, no political approach can give such 100% surety. What one can do is atmost compare and contrast two approaches and then decide which one he wants.

So when two methods (election-winning vs. USC-mass-movement) are compared – my  view is that mass-movement will take less efforts, less money and less time than election-winning. In fact, my view is that election-winning approach is a farce i.e. it will take infinite time i.e. RTR will never come by election winning approach, because those who get elected will sell out. Because each time, winners will become anti-recall after they win elections.

Now one valid point against “mass-movement for RTR-law-drafts” is : we need 100 RTR-law-drafts to implement RTR over 100 positions. And 100 mass-movements will be too expensive for citizens. But my proposed TCP innovation reduces this cost by factor of 99. I propose that activists should campaign for one mass-movement for TCP. And later using TCP, citizens can enact 100 RTR-law-drafts with mere Rs 5 crore per RTR-law-draft and 5 minutes of time per citizen.

14.2        What do I mean by USC-Aandolan  i.e. mass-movement?

USC means Udham Singh Centric, and it means same as AMUSC i.e. Ahimsamurti Mahatma Udham Singh Centric.

USC-Aandolan or USC-mass-movement is where crores of unpaid unorganized citizens are directly approaching all party workers, MLAs, MPs, Ministers, CMs, PM and asking CMs, PM to do some specific task, and asking all MPs, non-elected politicians etc to disclose their YES/NO about that specific task, and also appealing to Ahmisamurti Mahatma Udham Singh to act. In USC-mass-movement, citizens and activists would be using pictures of Ahmisamurti Mahatma Udham Singh, and not of Duratma Gandhi.

Eg — the mass-movement led by Indian Navy soldiers in 1946 was to force British to leave India.

Eg2 — in my case, the proposed task is — asking PM to print the TCP draft in Gazette without delay.

14.3        Basic structure of USC-aandolan i.e. USC-mass-movement I propose

In the mass-movement I am proposing, following are the main features

  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 most important item in the campaign is “request to Ahimsamurti Mahatma Udham Singh”, not appealing Duratma Gandhi and not waiting for elections. If you have medical problem, and you ask neighbors, friends, relatives, lawyers, CAs, architects . engineers and do not ask doctors, it is very unwise. If you want to get a task done, you must appeal to the person who is willing to do the task. The person who can convince PM is Ahmisamurti Mahatma Udham Singh and IMO, we activists and citizens must ask him to convince the PM. Using Mohanbhai is waste of time. This is the reason why The Anna was time-pass and time-pass from day one. Anyone, who wants to PM to print a law will never use picture of Duratma Gandhi. He will only make appeal to Ahmisamurti Mahatma Udham Singh. The only picture in the banner should be of Mahatma Udham Singh — Mahatma Udham Singh covers all persons such as Mahatma Bhagat Singh, Rashtrapita Mahatma Subhashchandra Bose etc.

14.4        Are citizens and Mahatma Udham Singh powerful enough to force PM , CM? Examples

The paid intellectuals of India have created a false notion that citizens are legless and handless, and are so weak that even 40 crore citizens can never ever force PM to print a piece of paper in Gazette. And they have also created fake notions that Mahatma Udham Singh will never show up, and they constantly insult Ahmisamurti Mahatma Udham Singh by calling him violent person, and this de-motivate Mahatma Udham Singh amongst us. In addition, between apr-2011 and aug-2012, Arvind Gandhi and The Anna deliberately created a false mass-movement and took it to a dead end to create a perception that whole concept of mass-movement is a farce and that election winning is only option. In reality, election winning is farce, because those who win election, in absence of RTR, become corrupt in few weeks and also start opposing RTR.

I need to show that mass-movement is a reality, and the statement that paid-intellectuals are making, that “mass-movement is impossible in India” is a white lie.

The lakhs of activists, if their drafts are supported by majority of citizens, are powerful to convince Ahimsamurti Mahatma Udham Singh to meet PM and convince PM. And PM can ignore all 120 crore citizens, he can also ignore lakhs of activists, but PM will always obey Ahmisamurti  Mahatma Udham Singh. And the PM and CMs are extremely weak fellows – they are not strong at all to withstand hostility of even few lakhs of citizens. In fact, our existing PM, MMS, is so weak that he can even say NO to MNC-owners and even weak countries like Pakistan openly ridicule him. Surely, we citizens, if aided by Ahmisamurti Mahatma Udham Singh, are very much strong enough to force such as a weak PM to print a draft on a piece of paper.

Theory apart, let me give some real examples of how successful Aandolans have been

  1. In 1946, due to mass-movement and Mahatma Udham Singhs in Indian Navy and elsewhere, British passed “Freedom of India Act”. So even almighty British had to succumb to wishes of commons and Ahmisamurti Mahatma Udham Singhs.
  2. Land Reforms in Saurashtra, Gujarat and many parts of India in 1950s : In 1950s, small time activists of Communist Party of India and independents started publicizing proposal to take away lands from kings and large landlords and give them to tillers and small farmers. These activists were not even 1% of force back then — back then Congress leaders controlled much of the politics. But the followings of these small activists started growing day by day. So Congress leaders saw that now they have only 3 options — (1) hijack and implement land reforms agenda and save the following OR (2) kill the activists and save the following of Congress OR (3) lose Congress leaders’ following to these small-time activists. Congress in Gujarat and Saurashtra did (1) – they hijacked the land reforms agenda and implemented. So Congress could retain the following, activists lost their following, but their agenda got implemented. In many other parts of India, Congress did (2), and at places they were successful in retaining following and at other places Congress did (2) and ended up losing following. But this shows activist-guided mass-movement can do bring massive change in politics sometimes.
  3. In 1974 in Gujarat, about 10000 students demanded resignation of the then CM Chimanbhai Patel. And many lakhs of citizens supported them. And later students demanded resignation of every MLA. Within months, CM resigned and so did every MLA (i.e. Assembly was dissolved). Surely CM did not resign willingly and MLAs did not resigned willingly. The force of citizens of intense enough that CM and MLAs had to do things unwillingly. Hence, it is possible for citizens to force CM, MLAs to even resign, forget forcing them to print TCP draft.
  4. In 1984 in Gujarat, some students demanded resignation of the then CM Madhavsingh Solanki. And many lakhs of citizens supported them. The agitation went on for several months. Finally CM resigned. Surely CM did not resign willingly. The force of citizens was  intense enough that CM had to resign. Hence, it is possible for citizens to force CM to even resign, forget forcing him to print TCP draft.
  5. In 1977, Devi Indira Amma ended emergency. The most important reason was that prisons were over flooded with activists of all age. The prison becoming houseful with activists is a nightmare for any Jailer and PM. Why? Because when police/prisoner ratio becomes too low, prisoners may dare to break the prison from insider. Now if policemen shoot down murders, rapists or thieves inside prison, the citizens will support them. But if policemen shoot down  activists with no otherwise criminal record, the citizens might burn down the whole prison. And when one prison breaks, the news gives courage to prisoners in prisons all across countries and many more prisons break. And when prisons break, the policemen at local police stations have only one option left to deal with aandolankaries – to shoot. Because there is no prison to imprison the aandolankari.  Since shooting 1000s of people is non-option, when prisons breaks, policemen have no option but to watch aandolankaries like a bystander. This increases the courage of citizens and more and more citizens become aandolankari and aandolan grows.. Devi Indira Amma could foresee that prisons can now break, and if that happens, aandolan against her grow like wildfire. So all in all, it was aandolan or fear of aandolan, which convinced Devi Indira Amma to end the emergency.
  6. As a small example, the student’s aandolan in 1991 played important role in forcing the then PM VP Singh to resign.
  7. Recently, in Apr-4-2011 and later on Aug-16-2011, The Anna sat on Anashan i.e. fast till death, and got Govt to work on Lokpal bill. This was not a true mass movement and so will not come as example in my explanations.

So I have given 3 National level examples and 2 Gujarat-level examples to show that citizens can force CM, PM to act against their will. One may add experiences of other States in India. At district\Tahsil\gram\city level, success of Aandolans is more than established. In fact, the so called Procedure of Election is routinely conducted only because elitemen see it as necessary condition to avoid Aandolans. IOW, the only reason why elections happen is to the fear of Aandolans.

So how to generate USC-Aandolan for TCP-draft, RTR-drafts and MRCM-draft? It is a voluminous, but simple task. It is voluminous because some 200000 activists may need to work 4-more hours a week. But tasks they will be doing are simple — mostly reading, understanding, asking questions and explaining further. The intellectuals claim that citizens are fools and lack awareness. IMO these intellectuals are liars. The citizens are very much intelligent and aware about their interest – they only lack information on drafts that West solved the problems. Once the citizens are informed – their self interest will be sufficient to make them act. No push or pull is needed. We do not need drama like Anshan.

14.5        More about mass-movement against Emergency

Because of splitting Pakistan, Pokharan-1, nationalization of banks etc USA decided to “teach” Devi Indira Amma a lesson. Russia i.e. USSR too was unhappy with Pokharan-1. USA via CIA started funding paid-mediamen such as paid-Ramnath-Goenka (owner of paid-Indian-Express, paid-Jansatta and many newspapers which controlled bug market share in early 1970s) to start a smear campaign against Devi Indira Amma. And CIA by funding eminent lawyers and by other means, convinced a High Court judge Jagmohan Sinha to disqualify Devi Indira Amma from MP-ship and thus PM-ship on frivolous chares.  And CIA bribed politicians across parties and also inside Congress to oppose Devi Indira Amma.

So by 1975, Devi Indira Amma was cornered. Devi Indira Amma had a big flaw in her thinking – she was anti-Democracy. So instead of thwarting the crisis using Right to Recall judge, RTR PM, Jury System and other such law-drafts, she declared Emergency i.e. a Dictatorship.

In 1977, Devi Indira Amma ended emergency. The most important reason was mass-movement, not some leader sponsored movement.

The mass-movement against Emergency started because during Emergency, the Congress, leaders, IAS, IPS etc had become too atrocious and corrupt. To make matter worse, Sanjay Gandhi started threatening IAS\IPS if they did not meet vasectomy targets. So IAS\IPS started vasectomy on large scale, and even unmarried and childless males (and in some females too) were forced to vasectomy. Many small traders were harassed with false or semi-real charge of black-marketing. In general, officers had become very heavy handed.

Gradually, a mass-movement started against Devi Indira Amma, because after all, she was the one who escalated powers of officers. Several citizens started protesting, and they were threatened with imprisonment. Some cowed down, but some did not. So police was left with no option but to imprison them.

The mass-movement still kept growing. So much so, that prisons were over flooded with activists of all age, mostly young. The prison becoming over-crowed, in some cases, 200% to 300% of capacities, with activists. Such prisons are nightmare for the Jailers and also PM.


Because when police/prisoner ratio becomes too low, prisoners may dare to break the prison from insider. Now if policemen are shooting down murders, rapists or thieves inside prison, the citizens will support them. And policemen will not feel demoralized either. But if policemen shoot down  activists with no otherwise criminal record, the citizens might burn down the whole prison. And when one prison breaks, the news gives courage to prisoners in prisons all across countries and many more prisons break. And when prisons break, the policemen at local police stations have only one option left to deal with aandolankaries – to shoot. Because there is no prison to imprison the aandolankari.  Since shooting 1000s of people is non-option, when prisons breaks, policemen have no option but to watch aandolankaries like a bystander. This increases the courage of citizens and more and more citizens become aandolankari and aandolan grows..

Devi Indira Amma could foresee that prisons can now break, and if that happens, aandolan against her grow like wildfire. So all in all, it was aandolan and fear that aandolan would grow, that forced Devi Indira Amma to end the emergency.

14.6        Why IMO USC-Aandolan is better than election winning for RTR-law-drafts ?

Following are the reasons why I support mass-movement based plan to print RTR-drafts in Gazette rather than election-winning plan to bring RTR in India

  1. In the election winning plan, over 90% of the winning candidates will sell out after winning within 6 hours, and refuse to print RTR-drafts in Gazette. And so activists will end up wasting time and energy in the election-winning. Whereas in mass-movement, since RTR-law-draft benefits citizens, they will never sell out and so whatever time, money and energy activists spend in spreading information about RTR-drafts will have net long term non-diminishing addition. Eg in 1977, many leaders such Nitish Kumar, Laloo Yadav, Mulayam Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan, Sharad Yadav etc got elected and they were supporting Right to Recall since 1970 !! But after they got elected, they all refused to print RTR drafts in Gazette.
  2. There is a rational and valid reason why people do not vote for “good” independents and “good” candidates from small parties, even if they trust him. Say in a constituency of 15,00,000 voters, say candidates are BJP, Congress and 5 good independents and 10 bad independents. Now say 800,000 plan to vote. Say 450,000 hate and fear Congress and 350,000 hate and fear BJP, or other way. Now lets say several thousands of those who hate Congress like a good independent. But many will rightly think – this independent is not going to win and still if I vote for him, then it will be one less vote for BJP and it only takes Congress closer to victory, and thus increase my losses. Therefore despite the fact that he likes good small candidate more than BJP and Congress, the voter still has one rational and valid reason to vote for BJP and not good independent. And a person who hates Congress will think other way. So the valid fear that “if I vote for a small good independent, then the party I hate more may win” will discourage voter from voting. Whereas in mass movement for law-draft, this fear doesn’t exist. Why? Because in supporting a law-draft in which he sees gain, he cannot end up being worse off that what he is now.
  3. There is a valid reason why citizen voters do not trust new comers. In every election, citizens elect some 15% to 20% first timers. And almost all first timers become as useless as veterans in few days. So many citizens see no point in giving chance to newcomers.
  4. Election winning method is clone negative. Pls see chap-15 for more details on clone negativity. So newcomers will end up canceling each others’ chances of winning.

So citizen doesn’t waste time in supporting a good law-draft, while citizen will end up wasting time in voting for  a new-comer, because in the end, 90% of the so called “good candidates” will sell out in few months. Whereas a good law-draft will not become bad just because it got enacted.


Election-only method

“Mass movement for law-draft” method

Definition :When a junior activist asks his leader “how shall we change the drafts of the laws in India”?, the senior leader says “we will contest elections only, convince citizens to vote for us, we will win elections and with MPs, MLAs, etc we will change the law-drafts.” This method is election-only method. When a junior activist asks his leader “how shall we change the drafts of the laws”? The senior activist says “we will convince citizens and Mahatma Udham Singh to force existing PM, CMs, and Mayors to print 2-3-more specific law-drafts.” This method is what I call as “mass-movement for law-drafts”.
Similarity :Election is also a mass-movement where-in activists have to convince citizens to vote for Party-X. The activists will need to approach crores of citizens to convince them to vote for Party-X In “mass-movement for TCP, RTR etc”, activists have to convince citizens to force PM, CM to print TCP , RTR drafts in the Gazette . The activists will need to approach crores of citizens for mass-movement for TCP
Back stabbing:In election-only method, the winning candidates may or rather almost always become corrupt after then win elections, and so no effective system change will come. IOW, election-only method is prone to back-stabbing, to the extent that I have no faith in election-only method. In mass-movement, active ingredients are citizens and they are crores in numbers. And they have no motive to flip sides, and so there is no back stabbing in mass movement.
Wait for 5 yearsIn election-only method, the biggest drawback is “wait for election” and this means “miseries will go on till election comes”. In mass-movement method, the demand is to end the miseries as soon as possible.
One step forward, two step backwards In election-only approach, there is always a possibility that your party may not get enough MPs to push the agenda. In that case, it is five years of “muddat”. So election only methods will keep throwing date five year “muddat” after every failure. In mass-movement, you inching every day and once critical mass is reached, there is near –possibility of failure.
Clone negativeIn election-only approach, the good persons affiliated with different parties will end up working against each other. IOW, election-only method is divisive and clone negative. In mass-movement, all individuals committed to improve India will support that movement, across their party lines. Thus mass-movement is clone positive.
Voter’s fear that worse guy may benefit :In election, it is rational for a voter  to vote for a winnable candidate who can defeat the winnable candidate he fears most. So a new party has to wait for long and wait for luck before it can get even one MP. So if a new party has good plans, but no perception of winnability, then it may need to wait for too many elections before it becomes successful. In mass-movement, citizens don’t look for winnability. So there is a good hope that a good law-draft will get attention of citizens.
Difference for junior activists:Election only method is more time consuming. Mass movements are less time consuming.
Difference for activist leaders Election only method gives leaders a leverage and opportunity to sell out and control. Mass-movements gives them no leverage and no opportunity to sell out.  
Difference for citizens Election-only method take less time for citizens – only 30 minutes in 5 years. But they gain almost nothing. But citizens have to wait for 5 years after 5 years after 5 years to make change. Mass movements more time – several days per citizens per mass-movement.  But they stand to gain the most. And they don’t need to wait for 5 years or even 5 days.
Difference for nationPost election, the new comers sell out and so change is minimal. Every election may just mean 5 more years wastes. In mass-movements, citizens and junior activists don’t need to wait for 5 years. They can work through out the period without waiting at all.


14.7        Why mass-movement is LESS time consuming than election method for activists?

The election vs. mass-movement has following peculiar relative feature : One mass-movement needs junior activists to spend far LESS time than election. The mass-movement will require citizens to spend days and days while election needs citizens to spend only 30 minutes. But activists needs to spend less time to generate mass-movement.

Why is it so? How would a mass-movement for law-draft take less activists’ time, given that citizens need to spend lot more time?

Because convincing citizens to support a law-draft, such as TCP or MRCM or RTR is easier than convincing citizens to vote for a candidate XYZ. So why is getting support for a law-draft is easier that getting support for a candidate? Because say in election there are two big candidates A and B. Now say a much better new candidate X comes. The voters of A will fear that voting for X will only help B and the voters of B will think other way. So unless the new party convinces voters that X will surely win, getting vote for X is difficult. There is no rational way to project that X will win when X is a first timer and is not backed by any dominant party. So junior activists need to spend a huge amount of time in rallies, in meetings, in sloganeering, in motivating other activists to create a perception of winnability. As an example, it took 45 years for RSS/BJP to get 180 seats in Loksabha. Why? Because in each election, they had to create perception of winnability to get even 15% votes and creating such perception needs more time than one has in his life. Whereas in creating support for law-draft, the activists don’t need to create perception of winnability – the activists only need to convince the citizens that the proposed law-draft will improve the nation and also benefit citizens. This is biggest time saver. A junior activist may not realize at this point. But creating perception of winnability is the most time consuming activity. It takes hours and hours of drum beating to create perception of winnability. If the law-drafts are actually in the immediate and prime interest of the citizens, then it is swimming along the stream, not against the stream.

Also, most citizens rightly believe that most new MPs  will become as corrupt as existing ones after they get elected. Hence, an activist will have to spend hours and hours convincing citizens that his candidate Mr. X is “different” from the rest. An act of convincing a irrational and unprovable assertion always takes many more hours than an act of convincing the right idea and much of the hours will still go waste as citizens are not fools that they will accept the wrong idea.

Further note that in mass-movement for law-drafts (such as TCP, RTR draft), the junior activists are spending time in explaining laws like TCP, MRCM, RTR etc to citizens and fellow activists. It improves intellectual ability of activists and citizens to think. This information exchange improves the intellectual levels of activists as well as citizens. Whereas rallies, attending meetings with same repetitious talks, sloganeering etc is a waste of time and money. So in creating perception of winnability, the junior activists will end up wasting hours and hours and days and days in mindless activities like rallies, slogans etc.

Now in election-only method, citizens have to spend less time – only 30 minutes needed to cast vote. While in mass-movement, citizens will need to spend several hours and even days a week. But then mass movement also gives several times more benefits than election-only. Hence the fact that mass-movements are more time consuming for citizens is ethically balanced.

14.8        Time needed to pass 100 law-drafts is also less than winning one election

The “mass-movement for law-drafts” will require less time for activists. It requires more time on part of citizens which is fair equation as citizens stand to gain lot more. But to improve nation, we need 100s of laws and so shall we have 100s of mass-movements for each of these 100s of law-drafts? If one mass movement needs citizens to spend 10 days of their lives, then 100 mass-movements will need 1000 days, which is unviable as people need to work and make a living.

Here is where proposed law-draft TCP is game-changer. TCP looks like a petty modification. But once PM is forced to print on it, TCP reduces the time needed for mass movement from 100 hours per citizen to mere 10 minutes per citizen and cost from several hundred rupees per citizen to mere Rs 3 per citizen. Hence in the RRP plan I am proposing, the time needed to enact 200 law-draft is not (200 drafts * 100 hours drafts) = 20000 hours per citizen. The time for mass movement for TCP is 100 hours per citizen but time needed for next 200 laws is mere 200*5 = 1000 minutes = less than 1 day per citizen. And the material cost for mass-movement for TCP may be several hundreds of rupees per citizen, but cost for next 200 law-drafts is only Rs 3 per citizen per law-draft or even less.

The election-only method at first glance looks even more efficient. It appears as if once elections are won, the MPs will pass all the good 200 laws within few days and so citizens wont need to spend even a minute. But this a pipe dream – the MPs after elections will sell out and so none of the RTR etc laws will pass  in absence of mass-movement. So once again, we need mass-movements and so we need low-cost ways to run mass movements. And we are back to TCP — TCP is the least expensive way to conduct a mass movement.

14.9        Then also why do leaders insist on “wait till elections”?

Now a junior activist may notice that many activist leaders insist on election-only methods. They would insist to their workers that till election comes, the workers should only gather more members and/or collect donations, but must not ask citizens to support any mass movement to enact any law. All these things should done after elections only. I have shown that election-only method is deeply flawed as there is near total possibility that after elections, elected MPs, MLAs etc will sell out, change sides and even become pro-corruption. So why do leaders insist on election only approach?

The most important reason why activist leaders prefer election only to mass-movement for law-drafts is that mass-movement gives no control to leaders, while election-only method gives control to the leaders. In election-only method, the leaders have control before as well after election, and they can sell out and make profits. Where as mass-movement can be only created by leaders, leaders cannot stop or even control its direction. So most “practical” leaders oppose mass movements for law-drafts.

14.10     Does your leader ask you NOT to spread information on RTR?

(This paragraph was written in nov-2011)

By Dec-2010, RTR-PM-draft, RTR-SCCj, RTR District Education Drafts etc had become no. 1 item amongst non-80G-activists. Not just number-one, most non-80G-activists had rightly started believing that RTR-drafts are the only way out to reduce MNCs’ rising dominance and its ill effects. RTR-drafts were known in too many common citizens as mediamen were paid or forced to stay silent on RTR-drafts. There is difference between how non-80G-activists communicate and ordinary citizens. The citizens exclusively depend on TV-channels and newspapers. But non-80G-activists attend meetings of political groups, also spend time in reading leaflets of political groups and also communicate about various political proposals via phone or internet. This is very powerful active filter — the forward the proposals they like and do not forward the proposals they dislike. There have no personal motive in deciding what to forward and what not to forward and so all good and only good proposals get forwarded.

So RTR-drafts were advancing in the non-80G-activists’ circuit.

However, a major disturbance has come since feb-2011. A large number of activists leaders, such as The Anna, who are backed by MNC-paid TV-channels, have come and are asking non-80G-activists not to spread information on RTR-drafts !! And sadly for us recallists, many non-80G-activists, due to hyper-faith TV-channels have created in them for these activist leaders are getting influenced by their appeal, and are giving less time in spreading information about RTR-PM-drafts, RTR-SCCj-drafts etc.

All these leaders have given them alternate agenda to keep their non-80G-activists busy. Eg The Anna has asked all his non-80G-activists not to spread information on RTR-PM-draft, RTR-SCCj-draft but to spread information on MNC-pal (aka Janlokpal) only. Some activist leaders are asking their activists to work only on getting members and donations, and so forth.

All in all, we Recallists need to convince all non-80G-activists not to disregard “don’t spread information on RTR-drafts” instruction their leaders are giving. This is a major obstacle for us Recallists, as the non-80G-activists have immense faith in their leaders, thanks to constant coverage given by TV-channels. Nevertheless, the drafts have plus points and so we recallists are making some progress, though the rate has decreased in past 2-4 months. Lets see how things go in future.

14.11     Non-decreasing nature of RTR-draft based movement vs Personality-based movement

The level of information on RTR does not decrease even if new inputs stop coming for few months because of activists getting busy in personal life or getting disillusioned for a while due low reporting in media. And in RTR movement, we don’t have to spend a penny to anyone from saying anything against us. More the opponents try to defame us, faster will information on RTR spread.

In contrast, the mass movements which are centered around personality hype require crores of rupees of inputs everyday and if inputs reduce, the hype starts receding. The inputs not only need to be given to mediamen to spread tall tales about the person, but also pay mediamen not to defame him or his views. As the movement grows, the costs keep increasing.

14.12     Jayprakash failed to enact RTR-laws in 1977.  How would Aandolan succeed now?

One valid question I face is : Jayprakash Narayan  had failed to force Congress leaders to enact the laws Further, JPN had also failed to enact the RTR laws after his own men became MP in 1977. So how will Aandolan succeed now, where JPN had failed?

JPN failed only because he never bothered to publish drafts needed to bring RTR and never communicated the importance of drafts to the activists. He kept focusing only on concept, publicity and movement. So when he became ill in 1977 and after his death, activists had no clue on what should be done. Whereas in the movement I have proposed, everything begins with text of the draft. The activist always approaches fellow activist or common man with RTR-drafts and talks only about the drafts and how drafts can improve India. So at each point, every activist has clear idea of what needs to be done and what he should do. All activists in my RTR-movement are independent.

So those who support TCP, RTR, MRCM drafts must understand the draft and communicate the drafts to fellow activists and citizens. If they insist on postponing and focus on concept only and the campaign, and not draft, then movement will get diffused.

14.13     Given that mass-movement of The Anna failed, can RTR-movement ever be successful?

The Anna’s Janlokpal was an illusion of activist-movement created by MNC-owners and Missionaries. And it was prompted by paid-media, and not by true-activists. A true activists-movement is where activists are funded on their own, they all understand the cause inside-out and the activists are explaining the cause to the commons. In case of Janlokpal, The Anna never asked the activists to read the 40 page draft and never asked activists to explain the 40-page draft to the commons. The draft reading and explaining was avoided because the draft favored MNC-owners and Missionaries and not the commons. So the movement was based on illusion of the draft and not the draft itself. Whereas in RTR-movement, every senior asks the new-comer to read the drafts of TCP, RTR etc.

So all in all, The Anna’s fake mass-movement and nothing in common with the RTR-movement I am proposing. This does not prove that my RTR-movement will be successful. But what I am implying is that experience and end-results of a fake mass-movement cannot tell anything about possibility whether a real activist-movement and mass-movement will succeed or fail.

To elaborate, the following are the differences between The Anna’s fake activist-movement and my proposed real activist-movement.


The Anna’s Janlokpal (aka MNC-pal aka Missionary-pal) movement

Right to Recall movement.


Janlokpal-draft was to benefit MNC-owner and Missionaries : The drafts benefits MNC-owners and Missionaries so that by bribing just 5-12 people at apex, they can control 10000s of Ministers, IAS, IPS etc. The RTR-drafts are to benefit commons : The RTR drafts benefit commons. So the movement is for commons, not MNC-owners and Missionaries.


Not explaining draft to activists : Due to above difference, it was not possible to explain the Janlokpal law-draft word-by-word to activists. And thus movement could never become self-propelled activist-movement. We explain the proposed drafts letter by letter  to new coming activist and thus activists can become self-propelled and self-sufficient.


Janlokpal was an illusion of mass-movement : MNC-owners and Missionaries, not people of India, wanted Janlokpal so that by bribing away just 5-12 people at apex, they can control 10000s of Ministers, IAS, IPS etc. Now as such MNC-owners could have bribed PM and Ministers and passed a Lokpal bill. But if PM and Ministers were to pass Lokpal bill on their own, activists would have smelt the fish. So an illusion that Lokpal law-draft is coming due to mass-movement was needed, and hence the Janlokpal movement. So all in all, Janlokpal was not a mass-movement, but only an illusion of mass-movement. The RTR-movement aims for real activists’ movement : There us no thing to Right to Recall movement is to get RTR-drafts which are 100% pro-common, anti-MNC-owner, anti-Missionary into Gazette. The movement is not to implement some nefarious agenda of MNC-owners or Missionaries. There is no hiding here.

About RTR

3 line law can reduce corruption and bring peoples to power

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: