So, Aruna Roy says
civil society can't make a law. I think she is right. Or, is she? I am of two minds about the whole l'affaire, the episode, the gruesome blackmail, well, whatever. I remember being numb with confusion. What are our lawmakers there for? They are a well paid lot, I hear. They have allowances, free travel, junkets to far lands of Thigh-land (no reference to the beautiful country), China (obviously to study the drainage system in Shanghai, but why Shanghai? Why not Paris?) and Timbuctoo, allowance to keep secretaries, fawning lackeys, mahila anuyayi (female followers) and it seems they have a huge laundry allowance, the way their dhotis and mundus are so well starched and ironed. (At least A.K.Antony is the best turned out of the lot, as is Vayalar Ravi. I don't know if they every tie their mundus as half-mast [above knees] as most of my states-men are fond of doing.) I am digressing. As a common, no-brainer, often reviled member of the citizenry I think I have a right to know.
That brings me to the question of what the honourable members of parliament are doing in the august body. Lalloo Yadav was caught napping by Meira Kumar.
Here's proof on Youtube. As I understand law makers are there not to change names of states, re-name streets, create new states, and speak about their constituencies and states in glowing terms. They are there to see that secretaries draft laws and pass them. Isn't it so?
How can a group of people (what's their locus standii?) draft a law and ask the government to rubber stamp it? It beats my ingenuous mind. I am not the vocal, vociferous type. Apart from singing in the bathroom I don't raise my voice unless I am too much provoked. Then I lose it really bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment