Middle classes and the anti-corruption movement

Corruption affects most people, from all walks of life. How is it that the middle classes responded to the movement with alacrity though poorer classes bear greater brunt of the malaise of corruption ? How is it that they come to champion the cause ? Is corruption free India more in sync with their growing self image of hard working, honest individuals not having to indulge in corrupt practices (both at the government and the private interfaces) in matters of urgency in their daily life : residential property purchase, school admissions, utility connections, hospital admissions and medical treatments and so on ? Does having middle classes leading a global ‘anti-corruption’ campaign (where no-sectional interests are highlighted, say, not specifically dealing with or highlighting specific problems faced by minorities or dalits) detract from the movement ?

Can the corruption in the Indian public life be correlated to the urge of the new ‘liberated’ entrepreneurial India, the ‘financially’ successful and impatient Indian middle classes to ‘get things done quickly’, ‘get what they want and feel they deserve’ by any means, fair or foul ? They wouldn’t mind breaking or bending a few rules, which, according to some of them, are archaic and deserve to be broken or bent. And in this endeavour, they are being ably helped and led by corrupt government officials and indeed the entire system of governance. Some people have seen in the impatience displayed by those associated with the Jan Lokpal movement about the parliamentary procedures a reflection of the same contempt shown by a lot of the youth and the upwardly mobile middle classes for the government systems and procedures they have to encounter in their daily life. Will this energetic upwardly mobile, aspiration driven middle classes forego their propensity to bypass rules, legal framework in their impatient urge to succeed against competitors ? Will they abide by rule of law even if others around them seem to be breaking the same ? It is there that their moral graduation will be put to test.

Parliament and the ‘civil society’ – why they may remain at cross purposes

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 ?