Much as the moral stance assumed by the middle classes spearheading the anti-corruption agitation give an impression of an universal malaise of the present Indian society and polity, there are many deep fault lines in the latter (inequity, poverty and hunger, expropriation of the majority of Indians, destruction of the habitats and environment vis-à-vis rapid economic development benefiting much fewer smarter Indians), associated with the demands of growth-obsessed country (is it 8% or 9%, the argument continues), where from the prime minister down to many in the government and major political parties take pride in the liberated ‘animal’ entrepreneurial energies of certain sections of our people. If this inequity is not bridged, the parliament elected by the majority of the dispossessed or marginalized Indians may come to perceive the ‘civil society’ spearheading such anti-corruption movements inimical to its interest in the long term. The next call from Anna regarding electoral reforms (right to reject, right to recall) could be interpreted as a potential hijacking of the political rights of the majority who might be sidelined by the liberation-globalisation agenda ?
Did the movement really project an individual, his moral superiority competing with not-so-perfect individual players in the political space ? Is disaffectation against the politicians and ways and means adopted by the political parties a danger to democracy ? (ref. the ‘grammar of anarchy’ speech by Ambedkar, democracy incompatible with the mass adulation of an individual, howsoever saintly or commanding a great moral stature he may seem to possess). By asking for a greater scrutiny of the MP’s actions and speeches inside the parliament amount to undermining the supremacy of the parliament ?
No comments:
Post a Comment