Anti-corruption – whose movement is it anyway ?

At the height of the anti-corruption movement during 2011, there were at least some commentators in the media who, apart from expressing serious doubts about the form of the movement and the remedy it suggested to curb corruption (in the form of an all-powerful, extra-governmental institution like Lokpal) also questioned the relevance of the movement to the toiling masses who form the majority of the electorate. The essence of the latter part of the argument was that while it was undeniable that the people at the lower economic rungs of the society pay a disproportionately large price for getting any service from the government machinery that was rightfully theirs, in their cruel daily grind to somehow survive (if necessary by paying a little bribe or speed money) they could not possibly accord a large priority to a high-minded protest agitation to eliminate corruption in the entire government machinery or the establishment, an impractical and utopian goal. A suggestion that the movement was elitist was probably implied.

The jury is still out as to the positive and definitive effect of the current mood of intolerance about corruption in the national capital, big cities and urban centers, among the educated, the intelligentsia, media and specifically that of the Anna Hazare led movement on the electoral outcomes in the assembly elections held since 2011. The results as always in the recent years had been dramatic in terms of biting the dust by the incumbent governments, but it might be disappointing to look for a clear indication of a countrywide uniform anti-corruption mood tilting the electoral choices. Although DMK’s decimation in Tamil Nadu may be ascribed to an extent to the culpability of A Raza (and others in the party) in the 2G scam having occupied both the national center stage and in the state adding to the general perception of DMK as a party full of corrupt politicians, it may not be fair to single out this cause for their fall, especially as governance wise DMK did reasonably well during their tenure. In Tamil Nadu emotive issues like the atrocities against the Sri Lankan Tamils and the perfection of the alliance arithmetic by Jayalalitha might have played equally or more important role. In Goa, a much smaller state, with a more focused political issue around a huge mining scam under the Digambar Kamat government, one might be more justified to flag the corruption as a major issue.

In UP and earlier in West Bengal the issue of regime change was probably the central one. Though the recognized left leadership in West Bengal may have been largely untouched by personal corruption it can not be anybody’s case that the left rule, especially during its last one or two stints had not spawned corrupt local satraps at the district and the block levels. The public anger at Lalgarh in demolishing the CPM’s party office and the opulent residence of the local party leader bore testimony to the popular disgust at their disproportionate wealth while the people they were supposed to serve were utterly impoverished. Still what was at stake in West Bengal in May 2011 was the possibility of ending a long-standing left rule in the state, ushering in what was euphemistically called ‘Poribartan’ (the change). Similarly, notwithstanding the latest indictment of several ministers in her government under corruption charges including Babu Singh Khuswaha earlier in the health mission scam, corruption in Mayawati led BSP government during its five year rule from 2007 was not the dominant issue in the 2012 UP assembly election nor the reason for her downfall.

Congress may be claiming that the spectacular downturn for the BJP in the recent Karnataka election is a vote against a corrupt government run in major part by Yeddyurappa whom the state Lokayukta indicted and the scams and loot, at the state’s connivance, by the mining lobby led by the Reddy brothers. But if corruption happened to be at the top of their mind the Karnataka electorate certainly could not have ignored the humongous record of financial scams and corruption notched by the Congress led UPA-2 government at the Center for the past four years. The election results do not seem to demonstrate such evenhandedness. Similarly, a little earlier, Virbhadra Singh who had to resign (or persuaded to do so by the Congress party) as a minister from the union cabinet under mounting corruption charges against him in his native Himachal Pradesh led, contrary to expectations in some quarters, the Congress party to victory in the state assembly election late last year and triumphantly became the chief minister yet again.

Thus the recent election results do not appear to provide any evidence of the heightened intolerance of the mass of Indian electorate (at least those who actively participate in the elections) about corruption as a priority issue. The commonplace and the cynical view is that for the broad electorate the caste or the religious identity (associated with the magnified assertion of a group’s self-worth, ‘asmita’ or pride), prospects of self-preservation (including physical safety in the face of hostile groups and communities, economic interests but not leaving out preservation of specific socio-cultural practices), and election-time monetary and other largess matter more. Chetan Bhagat in a recent OP-ED article in Times of India (18 May 2013) mentioned these issues as ones possibly overriding the concern of the Indian electorate regarding corruption.

Bhagat in his article suggested (without exploring it beyond it) an interesting angle to view this apparent disconnect between the progressive aspirations of the educated, enlightened, upwardly mobile middle classes and the stodgy and sheepish acquiescence of those occupying the lower depths to the corruption in high places. Ironically, according to him, this may be characterized as a sort of indirect revenge of the masses of the downtrodden on those miniscule sections of the Indian society who have always moved way ahead of them in terms of material prosperity. If anything the liberalization process underway over the last two decades has accentuated this inequity. Wages for the progress and the privileges cornered by these classes due to advantages of birth, education, rich inheritance, networking of classes or groups of higher economic and social standing, are being paid today to the less fortunate Indians for whom a morally spic and span society is possibly less of a priority than an equitable one. That is why they would elect a candidate promising them caste reservation in education and employment (hence making possible an improvement in their economic upliftment) or protection of minority religious rights (often an existential concern for many) despite allegations of financial corruption or criminal charges against him or her.

Ashis Nandy’s somewhat outlandish comments during a seminar within Jaipur literature festival earlier this year highlighted this same dichotomy. This school of thought shared by sections of the avant-garde Indian elite seems to believe that the increase in corruption indulged by the so-called ‘backward’ classes (SC/ST/dalit etc) is to be justified as a historical readjustment wherein the normatively ‘oppressed’ classes are finding ways to turn the tables on their erstwhile oppressors by learning and becoming more adept at the same game of corruption. It follows therefore, derived from this view point, that a principled opposition against corruption by the rich and powerful, especially those involved in the political governance of this country, is not only a distraction, but may eventually prove to be a stumbling block for the natural readjustment that the vigorous capitalism freshly unleashed by recent policies of liberalization. Dalit capitalism, according to these thinkers, is the way forward for ending the caste apartheid in India. And who does not know a little primitive accumulation of capital would serve this cause very well. One need not be squeamish about corruption if it helps this process.

Pursuing authoritarian rule through democracy : Narendra Modi

Despite the elitist skepticism about the electoral politics in India and many infirmities in the practice of democracy in our country, few will dispute the fact that both Narendra Modi and Mamata Banerjee had roared to win their respective state assembly elections with massive democratic mandate. Modi for the third successive reign, Mamata for the first time after demolishing the red citadel of 34 years standing. The pathways to power were very different. As persons they have many differences in characteristics, so also may be in their officially projected worldviews including political ideologies and affiliations. But there appears to be a singular unanimity in certain basic features of temperament and style of functioning when one observes these two currently prominent politicians in India. In this first part we deal with the peregrinations of Modi. We hope to devote a future post to Mamata.

-         Modi’s initial gambit was to project a hardline Hindutva face to encash the majoritarian anxiety and anger sweeping Gujarat like many other parts in the country following the communal riots post Babri Masjid demolition in Mumbai and elsewhere and then the Mumbai blast 1993 and thereby create a strong base in Gujarat. The Hindutva dividend accrued to him through a clear-cut democratic process, namely, the assembly election in 2002 that took place with the backdrop of the Gujarat carnage.

-         In the next stage, the challenge of wide spread national and international condemnation and criticism that the state government and administration faced with regard to its acquiescent role during the pogrom and willfully partisan rehabilitation policy it followed in the aftermath, was cleverly turned into an opportunity for consolidating his vote bank among the majority community in Gujarat in the name of defending the ‘asmita (pride)’ of the five crore Gujaratis and promoting the cause of Hindutva under attack from the ‘pseudo-secularists. In course of time by a subtle spin Hinduvta was made synonymous with nationalism. Fighting Islamic terrorists, axiomatically assumed to be Pakistan-supported, by any means, extra-judicial or otherwise, was a duty a truly nationalist chief minister and his administration was justifiably proud of executing. The 2007 assembly election results handing him an absolute majority mandate gave him confidence in continuing more vigorously his ongoing experiment with a model for an economic development of Gujarat he had already embarked on and that he would later claim as a panacea for the whole country.

-        The third stage was the economic transformation of Gujarat along the clear-cut capitalist prescriptions. The liberal economic policy pursued by the government coupled with the traditional entrepreneurial zeal and the business skill of the Gujaratis helped the state notch up a very good macroeconomic growth rate (among the highest achieved by various states in India). The stick-at-nothing approach to achieve this goal made Gujarat the most business friendly state in the country, acquiring land for infrastructure (roads and connectivity) and other ‘public purpose’ that included private industry and other entrepreneurial activities, encouraging cash crops, allowing preferential share in scarce water resources to agri-business and industry. There was no ambivalence as to who and what the government stands for and no pretension for equity or inclusiveness. Income disparity, children malnutrition, water scarcity and agricultural distress in many drought affected districts, increasing segregation of the urban population along the religious lines, poor and dwindling rehabilitation of the 2002 riot victims and to top it all increasing debt that the government incurred in order to live up to its promise of business friendliness – all of these and more were brushed aside in the name of achieving the enviable growth statistics. An impression has been created among the upper and middle classes, not only within Gujarat but in many urban centers of India that an economic miracle has been engineered in Gujarat. 

-         Through these ten odd years of rule Modi had managed to decimate opposition Congress party electorally through huge democratic mandates which was rationalized as a popular response and support of the state electorate to first his Hindutva ideology and later his image as a leader of an efficient business-enabling state administration taking the state to great and demonstrable prosperity. That he had always had his detractors within his party, BJP, and wider organizations of the Sangh Parivar was always known. There were both muted and open criticism within the party and the Sangh about some of his policies, biases and most importantly his autocrat like brook-no-opposition style of functioning. But the spectacular way he had managed to sideline senior state party leaders like Waghela, Keshubhai Patel and others and alienated an important Sangh apparatchik like Sanjay Joshi and eventually pushed them out of the party and even hounded some of them out of the state politics confirm his Machiavellian prowess and the determination to remove any obstacle to the path of his preeminence in the party. Interestingly, he has even reconfigured his relationship with the Sangh Parivar, maintaining a studied distance from some of its important organizations like VHP, the ones that gave him his initial break.

-         Modi’s brand of democratic functioning is most illuminatingly demonstrated recently in the new Lokayukta bill he is said to be piloting in the state assembly which he hopes to turn into law by dint of his ‘democratic’ majority. He is clearly trying to sabotage the currently nominated Lokayukta (his dogged opposition to the decisions of the Governor, legal challenges at the High Court having failed to yield desired result, i.e. a Lokayukta of his choice) by bringing in a new law where a new selection procedure is being suggested that will clearly be subservient to and controlled by the chief minister.

-        Post his third time anointment as the chief minister after winning absolute majority in the 2012 assembly elections his script is showing up a trajectory of him coming up with increasing frequency to Delhi and many other places (recently Haridwar). These involve occasions of not merely attending important BJP party meetings and functions of national significance but special seminars, meets, discussions for projecting himself, quite successfully, towards the party rank and file, to media and the public at large as the one and the only alternative for BJP’s the prime ministership candidate. If the topmost leaders of BJP are already feeling the heavy breathing of an ambitious and ruthless leader like Modi on their shoulder they are not showing it and making brave noises about democratic functioning of the party. But the first capitulation has already happened in that Modi has bulldozed his way into the top decision making body of the party, namely, the parliamentary board which, at the appropriate time, is expected to ‘democratically’ nominate one among the many equals as the potential prime minister of the shadow cabinet.

Thus in many ways Modi’s is a saga of using his apparent democratic advantage to allow him to pursue a type of authoritarian rule that has many historical parallels with classic developments of fascism in Europe during the last century. One waits with bated breath if the country's democratic system could be subverted yet again to construct the second attempt at installing a quasi-authoritarian dispensation at the center.

Questioning the nature of Indian democracy

·        Is holding 5 yearly elections the hallmark of our democracy ? The manner in which such elections are conducted (use of money and muscle power, inducements, openly pandering to caste, religious, ethnic, linguistic, regional prejudices are known to vitiate the electoral atmosphere) raises serious doubt whether the election results are manipulated to an extent.

·        Though in principle people can make a free choice in these elections, it is really the political parties that one gets to choose from a list (though given as a list of candidates). The parties nominate candidates by a non-transparent process in which their winability at any cost becomes the major factor in their choice. Their present and future utility to the party takes precedence over the moral character, educational qualifications and background, knowledge, competence and wisdom that the candidates, ideally, could bring to bear on the delivery of public good to the constituents who would elect them.     

·        Assuming that the election provides Indians a means to choose and/or overthrow their rulers in a non-violent manner, they have to perforce agree to be governed for the next five years by a set of ‘chosen’ people, who despite pious protestations, effectively arrogate to themselves the power to set the rules of governance as per their convenience and their perpetual benefit and continuance, and insist that these ‘rules’ are sacrosanct, next to being god-given, and can not be challenged by anybody – people at large or by some other associations, organizations, institutions on their behalf.

·        Once chosen, through a far from satisfactory electoral process, a party or an alliance of parties parading a majority of number of wining candidates (MLAs or MPs) expects an effective immunity from critical scrutiny of the policies persued by the executive (the government) formed by them as well as the details of implementation of even those stated policies. Not only are the protests by the opposition parties as well as dissatisfied members of public and civil society considered undemocratic, but even adverse comments by a constitutionally mandated auditor of the accounts of the government are deemed to contribute to the perils of our democracy. In the same spirit some unfavourable pronouncements and judgments by the highest judicial institution of the country (the supreme court) are deemed hostile and not conducive to independent and efficient operation of the three sets of wheels propelling our democracy. Whoever has talked about the checks and balances being part of democratic functioning must be ignorant of the daily grind of a state machinery !  The question is : should we be proud of such a machine or a little disgusted and even scared at the prospects of having to deal with it on a daily basis ?