Disturbed by the high level of facebook activism surrounding the issue of Anna’s fast and the Jan Lokpal Bill, I had pledged to myself that I will exercise self-restraint and not participate in any online discussions on this issue although I did allow myself to ‘like’ related posts or make a funny/snide remark or two in support/against the same. However, I soon realized that it was going to be a difficult promise to keep so I decided to blog about it instead.
I must admit ,at the very start , that I am not part of the India Against Corruption (I like the facebook page though because apparently, people’s movements have moved online these days). Neither did I once visit Ramlila Grounds but given the 24/7 media coverage, I didn’t have to (because following the movement on television equals participation in the struggle).
I must also acknowledge that I have gone through the motions with the whole issue and have only now developed a clear-ish opinion on this. I went from being anti-Anna and anti-UPA to pro-movement (it took me a while to accept that this is, indeed, a movement of sorts) and anti-corruption, while remaining ill-disposed towards this government the whole time.
To my mind, there are two distinct yet related elements to this movement-one, Anna’s or the public’s right to protest peacefully. And second, should Anna be allowed to hijack Parliamentary powers?
The movement and the public perception about it has changed course since its inception a few months earlier. From being a movement led by Anna, the modern day saint who could do no wrong and his version of the Lokpal Bill as the magical solution to corruption in India, it is gradually transforming into an anti-corruption movement. While there are a number of people who follow Anna, there is an equal number of people who favour the larger cause, even if they do not agree with Anna and his methods. There is also a group who does not support Anna and questions the legitimacy of the movement on the basis that it is driven by right wing, fascist elements and the nature of the demands it makes of the government and its institutions.
On the question of Anna’s /public’s right to protest peacefully, no one can express any doubt about the utter stupidity of the UPA government, both legally and politically. Legally, because what they did was plain unconstitutional and politically, because it takes astounding levels of brain damage for a government literally in the nadir of its existence to screw up its image any further but you know Team Manmohan…they make it possible!! As a result, not only was a potential dialogue process on the Lokpal Bill thwarted, it led to this totally avoidable media spectacle…11 days and counting, and a complete hardening of stance by Anna. Once again, Kudos to the charming UPA folks!!
On the issue of Anna’s refusal to end his fast and hold the government to ransom to agree to his version of the Bill, it is unacceptable. But, as I mentioned earlier, this situation was totally avoidable.
But there is another issue that has been raised by the detractors of this movement, mostly by the left leaning intellectual elite that has been bothering me the most. Led by Arundhati Roy and the likes, this group tends to argue that only certain kinds of social struggles are acceptable in a democracy. In an op-ed piece in The Hindu mockingly titled ‘I’d rather not be Anna’, Roy seductively argues that this movement is limited to the bourgeois (because entrenched corruption such as ours affect only and only the middle class and not the poor).
Questioning Anna’s credentials, she argues
Who is he really, this new saint, this Voice of the People? Oddly enough we've heard him say nothing about things of urgent concern. Nothing about the farmer's suicides in his neighbourhood, or about Operation Green Hunt further away. Nothing about Singur, Nandigram, Lalgarh, nothing about Posco, about farmer's agitations or the blight of SEZs. He doesn't seem to have a view about the Government's plans to deploy the Indian Army in the forests of Central India.
What if I ask…..Who are you, Ms. Roy? What gives you the right to argue for the rights of those displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project or make one quick visit to the jungles in Bastar and question the Salwa Judum or proclaim that Kashmir is not part of India? Who are you? Nothing more than an attention-crazy Booker Prize winning has-been author!!
What if the civil society had greeted Arundhati Roy’s foray into social activism with such cynicism? Would it not be considered undemocratic by the so-called left liberals? The answer is YES. Then why is Anna’s movement being considered illegitimate on flimsy grounds such as his absence from other civil society campaigns or his so-called links with the RSS? Apparently, Sushma Swaraj ‘admitted’ in Parliament that RSS has been mobilizing support for Anna’s movement. Oh My God, what a travesty!! That is reason enough for the self proclaimed lefties to abandon this movement as it is urban, right wing and bourgeois. If the Left steers away from socio-political struggles because groups with different ideologies than theirs lead or participate in them, then it is only fair that the public have ‘left’ them. Nivedita Menon’s post ‘We should be there’ on Kafila makes a compelling case against the Left’s attitude in this regard.
People choose movements ..movements do not choose people, but Ms. Roy would have us believe otherwise. In this case, many people have chosen this movement to support, for whatever reason. Some of them have chosen Anna and his Bill, some others have just chosen the cause. Anna has chosen, and wrongly so, to demand the space that constitutionally belongs to the Parliament and now is the time for the civil society to withdraw because the process of pre-legislative public deliberation is now over and they have succeeded in putting this issue out there and bringing it back into public consciousness as well as on the public policy agenda. But, I also believe that the UPA maximally used its magical screw-up powers to push him in this direction. Anna has also chosen to be stubborn and continue his fast even after the Government has exceptionally agreed to debate his draft in Parliament, despite advice to the contrary by his comrades. Anna’s detractors have chosen to take a non-existent (in my view) higher moral position that this movement is dangerous, useless, unreal and undemocratic and of course, their position is not radical or absolutist, because they and only they constitute the sane and the liberal in India!! What they do not realize is how easily they are playing into the hands of the ruling government’s stance on people’s movements as such. In fact, it is on this very basis (as potential threat to democracy/law and order, amounting to blackmail etc etc) that the government prevented Team Anna to stage a protest and made pre-emptive arrests on 16 August. May be, the NAC should look into this issue (I will leave my problems with this strange creature called the NAC for another post)
All in all, I am on one hand, reassured by the multiplicity of viewpoints that this issue has garnered, both in favour and against, expanding the space for deliberative democracy and on the other, quite disturbed by the disdain of the Left towards this movement, considering that it is an issue that affects very much their own constituency..the poor, marginalized and the dispossessed. But mostly, I continue to be baffled by the total and complete failure of the political leadership to run this country.
I never expected to end with a Arun Jaitley quote(but being a democrat, inspiration may come from all quarters, including the far right) but I will, as it succinctly sums up my feelings,
The Prime Minister is the tallest political functionary in the country. It is true the government cannot find a magic wand to end corruption, but the point is, it does not really need one. You have to address yourself to the correct question. Do you have the political will to fight corruption? You have to say, sir, I have the authority and moral stature as the prime minister and evolve that will. Only then will you win back the confidence of this country.
