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.     

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.