Are being "realistic" and being "cynical" two minor (shade) variations of the greater spectrum of the Pessimistic Disorder Syndrome?
Why am I unable to log-in, emotionally, to this great brouhaha, the Lokpal Circus?
The country will change for ever, I hear.
The anti-corruption lobby, the Flood that will wash away our myriad sins, is metaphorically here.
And, sincerely, all it seems like is another Rinki Weds Tinku which will be attended by many as they have nothing better to do, the national favourites butter chicken and kadai paneer will be consumed and criticized, and all the guests will go back home to digene/eno/pudinhara.
Cynicism is a trait I have seldom been accused of... generally, it has been the exact opposite.
As the circus unfolds, and the plot graph stumbles, the characters stand revealed in their ephemeral glory. We can immediately see the WHO, WHERE, WHEN, and the WHAT. However, what is quite unclear is the WHY. "A man always has two reasons for what he does - the good one, and the real one." (John Pierpont Morgan) What, I find myself asking repeatedly, IS the REAL reason? And this appears to border on the cynical.
Perhaps I am unable to cut through the cr** of people feasting on fasts to understand all the implications of why this new post needs to be instituted in a country which has an exhaustive and exhausting constitution (yes, had to study it in Political Science in school!) with enough provision for amendments as and when required by... uh... human evolution, I guess. Studying the two columns - Govt and Team Anna - what they agree on and what they disagree on felt like the old familiar negotiations with the sabzi walla, "if you buy two kilos of potatoes I will give you a lemon free" and "I will buy two kilos of tomatoes if you cut the new kaddu for me".... Therefore, I'm left feeling, as helplessly as Monty Bodkin, that there must be "wheels within wheels".
The obvious question about the creation of this new-age Orthus has been asked - what if the Lokpal itself becomes corrupt? There is no irony in this situation, of course; it is a logical question to ask. We operate on Murphy's assumption that if anyone can become corrupt, s/he will. But can we take this a step further and ask, Why would anyone want to become this Orthus, this corruption watch-dog whose raison d'etre exposes the basic fallacies of democracy? We assume that in a democracy no one can "get away" with any sort of crime - this includes those in high office - then we go on to demand the clay out of which to craft a critter that may have the power to become much worse than those it is meant to watch. And, if this were not a democratic country, our heads would've already rolled just because we demanded....
Herein lies the irony. We are able to use the (somewhat debatable) right to free speech to ask for something (or, as has been mostly the case here, assert our right to emotional blackmail) which, in turn (we are quite aware) could go terribly and horribly wrong, and yet the inherent contradictions of asking for it don't hit us between the eyes.
Perhaps all the main characters in the drama should pause and wonder WHY... because, at the moment, the plot graph is sliding up and down in too many peaks and troughs, leaving the audience exhausted with the complete lack of logic in its progression.
