There were probably many deficiencies of the Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement, which has all but petered out recently partly, at least, due to its own contradictions. There were a lot of criticisms from the political class, hard boiled journalists and newspaper editors against the impossibility and even danger (to Indian democracy) associated with the utopian dream of the movement daring to suggest that the men in the street can take more than a passing interest in the formulation and effective passage of a key legislation affecting their daily life.
It was no mean achievement that despite all this and more gripes about the arrogance and the self-righteousness of the leaders the spirit of the movement struck a sympathetic chord with a large number of people without any regimented or forcible mobilization by political parties. People’s participation was by and large spontaneous and quite unprecedented, like of which we probably have not seen in recent times. The clearest indication of the mass participation is the almost nervous attempt (though mainly devious) of the government last year (April-August) in engaging with the team Anna and negotiating their demands in contrast with the calculated way that the same government cold-shouldered the movement and those spearheading it this August.
Popular movements sometimes happen when there is an apparent emotional consensus among wide categories of people about the existence of a significant social/political malady from which people desire deliverance and there is no easy resolution within the conventional socio-political framework. And in this context an individual or a group that appears to hold public’s attention is widely believed to be different and outside this framework, morally superior, with a genius for understanding and articulating people’s genuine expectations and also capable of bringing about a change in the said framework to meet these demands.
Rampant and endemic corruption in our body politic is indeed such an issue of wide and genuine public concern. Current political system is apparently not willing or able to root out this menace despite a lot of protestations to the contrary. Anna and his team were seen as rank outsiders and were largely fresh, uncorrupt and seized with a novel idea of a lokpal (as an upholder of the ethical conduct of the public institutions) that would stand astride the present system and clean it. However, the group’s organizational strength and cohesiveness, the leadership’s clarity of vision and the ability to evolve a sustainable plan for campaign making practical adaptations, dynamically forming new and wider alliances with other popular movements (at least not alienating some of them) fell far short of expectation of supporters and sympathizers with the movement tapering out to a tame end.
From this example it will be apparent that creation of a valid moral apposite, though difficult, may have been possible to a large extent. But the hardheaded capability to sustain the moral vision through the vicissitudes of a long drawn movement, has not yet been in evidence. Thus the movement with all its early momentum had failed the reality check.
