Figuring out Anna.

There are heaps of analysis on this topic that mine would just be another speck in this research.The analysis's are of such mountainous proportions that any one angling for a doctorate need only to assemble them chronologically and pat would a PhD land on their hands ,just for the asking.

Nevertheless i am adding my bit to this monumental mental exercise that taxed and squeezed out various observations from all over the country.
The most important exercise is whether he is 2nd Gandhiji?Does his actions and speeches warrant such a tittle?

His prescription for the treatment of alcoholics i.e lashes and his immediate remark to that famous slap "Bus sirf ek ?''[only one?]has triggered this debate.

Definitely, there is a wide chasm between the original and the current.Whilst Gandhi was highly educated ,hailing from a family of fairly good means and was well travelled ,the new age Gandhi is a rustic,of lesser means and education.
Yet the common thread between the two is that they question daringly those powers who consider themselves to be of divine origin.

Whilst Gandhi was branded as a half naked fakir for daring to question the mighty emperors of the world --the so called enlightened Britishers ,Anna is dismissed as a half baked simpleton with crude ready fix methods ,by those who have come to view the control of this country as their sole prerogative and right ,once they are voted to power.

It is their guts the courage to stand up to the rulers who think that they are infallible,that has struck receptive chord in hearts of all those seething in resentments bottled over the years for having been taken,for a ride.

Both have their idiosyncrasies and both are not bothered to conceal it.

Regarding the violence bit, there is surley a wide gap.
But to my mind ,it is the aggressiveness of Anna ,a nonentity from nowhere with nothing to lose to mock and shake the well entrenched that appeals to youngsters ,his main fans.Don't all youth like a bit of ragging,laugh at those who slip and fall and love to break rules?

The populace of Delhi the seat of power of India are quite insular .They think that only they exist and that they alone hold the key to the destiny of this vast sub continent.I too felt the same as a Delhite in my formative years.And when a nobody from nowhere is ready to take on those mightier[politicians] than them without the hassle of voting and selecting an candidate from the equally poised untrustworthy and provides them a simple straight method to acheive what is upper most in their mind -- do away with corruption ,all chipped in wholeheartedly.To agitate on the streets and get things done quickly.

The failure at Bombay maybe because like all those living down the Vindhyas ,there is never a feeling that we control the destiny of India.We leave it to the Northies to safe guard our national interests since they are the scarred and succesful warriors of many a battles and confrontations , historically and geographically,having faced the full brunt of successive and never ending foreign invaders ,greedy looters and land grabbers,starting with Alexander from 325 bc onwards whilst south's contacts were mainly with maritime traders [it is another story that the ostensibly harmless traders brought the entire country under its grip]and are as always content to let the experts and veterans put up a spirited ,successful and tenacious fight ,to preserve the ethos--dharma of this country.