On Anna Hazare movement

Among some of the  currents of thoughts provoked by Anna Hazare movement were

·       The movement has challenged the notion of representative democracy practised in India, apprehensions expressed about undermining of democratic procedures and structures and established traditions. India unlike many other underdeveloped and developing countries, armed with a greatly admired Constitution, has been successfully conducting a democratic exercise of universal, free and fair (relatively speaking) elections and has a great many functioning democratic institutions, fairly proactive judicial checks and balances, legal framework, has a number of progressive laws (like RTI) ironed out through these democratic processes. There is this discomfort, mainly among the politicians but also many among intellectuals and others within the broad sections of civil society, that a movement that openly casts aspersion on the parliament and the parliamentarians, shows contempt for the parliamentary procedures, in reality, is trying to destroy these institutions. [As an aside, sections of the polity that has acquired prominence over the years championing the positive caste discrimination issues that had mainly benefited and enriched the top/creamy layer of many in backward/SC/ST caste people, have displayed apprehension that devaluing parliamentary procedures, holding in contempt some politicians of these groups/caste formations may eventually lead to marginalisation of their vital interests.]. The movement openly voiced a doubt whether the so-called “people’s representatives do represent the people who voted them to the law making body. Having elected them once in five years, should people remain unconcerned about how these “representative” conduct themselves in or out of the legislative bodies, what kind of laws they make, especially if the a law holds vital interests of the people at stake ?

·        Another strand of thought involved raising doubt if the corruption is not a larger social and ethical issue and is a merely legal response (in terms a law and another cumbersome institution of controversial structure) adequate to deal with it ? This strand primarily brings into focus the inequity in our society and the economic order that perpetuates and exacerbates it and the interests of the proponents of liberalization, the corporate world and their implicit and explicit supporters in government bureaucracy indulging in crafting policies for expropriating large section of people of their livelihood, destroying biodiversity and the environment (at the alter of a ‘development’ model prescription by the liberalization reformers and the globalisation fundamentalists), misuse of power and driving nepotism and crony capitalism and the conception of a permanent and built-in fountain-head of corruption associated with it. To thwart this hydra of corruption we need radical restructuring of social and economic priorities (may be even economic order) and a mere law to oversee financial corruption of government bureaucracy, legislators and ministers (and leaving out the corporates and the captains of Industries from its purview) will not serve the purpose of eradicating corruption.

·        An interesting  issue that came up for some inquisition was why media was so enamoured with this movement. There were oblique hints on the class character of this movement, their source of funding and moral support. There were questions about the real motivation of the media to single out this movement for such an exclusive and misson-mode support.