Reflection on a movement

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.     

Team Anna beware of self righteousness and haste

Recent announcements and actions by Anna Hazare and some of the other leaders of the anti-corruption movement have come in for a lot of criticism for valid reasons. No doubt passing Jan Lokpal bill in the winter session of the parliament was and is the central focus of the movement. The parliamentary resolution passed during last session containng some sort of a commitment by all the political parties to craft the final bill, so as to contain the three basic demands from Anna and his team is expected to be discussed threadbare in the standing committee currently. The committee is also supposed to reconcile these elements with representations and blue prints about the same institution received from other sections of the civil society, government institutions like CVC, CBI (those that might have felt the most threatened in terms of restructuring and operational redeployment). The committee will also hear from political parties, pressure groups representing sections of populations (SC/ST, dalits, muslims) some of whom might have felt apprehensive of aspects of the proposed bill that appeared not sufficiently inclusive. Clearly, though the clarion call for the movement was given by Anna and his immediate supporting organizations, e.g., India Against Corruption, it can not surely be a case of simple rewording of the Jan Lokpal bill as visualized by the team Anna before being placed in the parliament as a fait accompli to be debated and passed like a routine bill.

When the team Anna decided to directly campaign during the Hisar election, many people including many staunch Anna supporters were genuinely dismayed. Not just because this direct involvement in the electoral politics may tend to rob the moral superiority of a movement that was essentially perceived to be apolitical. But the argument provided by some prominent team Anna members like Kejriwal, Bedi and even Anna himself was not very convincing and indicated confusion in thinking. It sounded quite disingenuous for the team Anna to claim that their anti-congress campaign was a simple fall out of the Congress party (through its president) not publicly intimating by a letter to team Anna (as BJP and some other parties involved in the electoral fray had apparently done) or publicly pledging otherwise the party’s commitment to pass the bill during the winter session. And it was rather naïve for them to believe that Congress being the major party within UPA that is in power in the Center, a simple commitment given by Sonia Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi would have been a sufficient guarantee for the successful  passage of the bill. The weakness of this position becomes exposed when, well into the Hisar campaign, Anna acknowledged the receipt of the letter from the prime minister assuring him of the passage of a strong Lokpal bill in the coming session and announced his ‘faith’ in the word of the prime minister. It is not clear what would have been their campaign objective or strategy if this letter would come a few days earlier that is before the election campaign.

Three points need be made about these recent confused peregrinations of some of those associated with this movement. First of all, the team including Anna probably has not fully grasped the momentous nature of the achievement of the movement. It was indeed rare in the history of independent India that such a spontaneous, largely non-political response of the common people was on display to a politically significant (legislative) issue. As a result a high level of awareness has been generated about the issues involved across the length and breadth of the country. But this popular support should not be construed by anybody to assume that a referendum has already been conducted (the apparent display of public support notwithstanding) and the results are already overwhelmingly in their favour. No silly pronouncement should have been made, meaningless or harmful actions taken so as to dissipate the momentum, the positive vibe the movement has generated, and open dissentions (not merely disagreements) among the members of the team Anna should not have been paraded. Secondly, Jan Lokpal bill is one among many proposals and it was in the interest of everybody to engage in debates, discussions in appropriate forum (media, parliamentary committees, etc) to find out how much of the positive aspects of their proposals could be retained while augmenting them with other good suggestions from other concerned individuals, groups, political parties (while trying to defeat, in a democratic manner, the bulwark of reactionary thinking holding the parties back). Thirdly, street level politicking (electoral campaign, dharna, hunger strike) has to be held in abeyance at least till the draft bill gets to be debated in the parliament. That stage, if required again, should await its turn. 

Some issues about the anti-corruption movement

Some comments have appeared in the media to the effect that the moral underpinning of corruption is being underplayed in the zeal of fashioning a legal broom to clean the body politick of the grime of corruption. While one may not hope to cure the propensity to steal or cheat or other crimes by law, effective policing, good legal framework to deal with these crimes and dispense suitable deterrent punishment for these crimes can control them. In the same way, while the propensity to corrupt practices can not be rooted out by law, a comprehensive law and a suitable enforcement machinery should deter those who otherwise indulge in such practices with impunity and encourage a lot many more along the same path as one of least resistance.

A more relevant and deeper social issue that may have a bearing on corruption is the stake one has in active perpetuation and/or passive acceptance of inequity as a fact of life, as indeed an important basis on which all progress (most importantly economic) is constructed. The stratification in our society has invariably brought about a fast moving resourceful India of private enterprise distinguished from the large slothful sarkari India of millions whose lives have not been much illuminated by the magic wand of liberalisation. Corruption will inevitably result in such a scenario.

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.