views
BANGALORE: The first day of the three-day fast in the city by India Against Corruption (IAC) saw a poor turnout as only around 60 people turned up at Freedom Park to express their solidarity with anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare.Hazare on Tuesday started a three-day fast at the MMRDA grounds in Mumbai campaigning for a strong Lokpal Bill. This is Anna’s third fast since April and it is said that the enthusiasm of the people in the campaign seems to be waning with passage of time.Tuesday was a sharp contrast to IAC’s earlier agitation in August which drew close to six lakh people to Freedom Park over 15 days along with various other events like bike rallies and door-to-door campaigning. With continuous protests being launched nationwide and the governments decision to table its own version of the Lokpal Bill, hopes of protesters who showed up earlier seem to have waned.“I was here in April and later in August, I have come here today but do not have any hopes from the government. I will be returning to work soon,” said Mahesh, a visitor.For others yet it was a disappointment as they showed up expecting to learn something about the movement. “I missed the August protest, but after Anna came to Bangalore recently to campaign for the Lokayukta, I wanted to see what IAC is all about. Hope the turnout picks up in the coming days,” said Karthik, another visitor.“A lot of our support base comes from colleges and the young working section of society, they are all out of town on leave or at work,” said Prithvi Reddy, a volunteer. While accepting that the turnout was low, he stated that people were contributing in their own ways to the cause. “Our deadlines were very short for this protest and we could not prepare for it as well as we wanted to. We are continuously reacting to day-to-day happenings and not everyone can be free,” he added.On the Lokpal Bill and the debate in Parliament, Prithvi said, “So far, the debate has not been about the issue but is based on personalities involved. We are hoping for a better quality of debate.”
Comments
0 comment