Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Half-baked idea by Venkitesh Ramakrishnan

Half-baked idea by Venkitesh Ramakrishnan

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Apr 23, 2011   modified Modified on Apr 23, 2011
Expectations of changes resulting from a movement bereft of a clear political and ideological thrust would be far-fetched.

FROM the vacuum left by mainstream politics to the confusions of ideology and practice emerging out of half-baked socio-political engagement – the political trajectory of Anna Hazare's “anti-corruption” satyagraha movement demanding early introduction of the Lokpal Bill in Parliament can well be summed up thus. The wide support that the movement received from across the country from different strata of society, especially sections of the educated youth, was essentially the by-product of the blank spaces left by mainstream politics in several areas of the polity, more so on the issue of tackling corruption. The controversies that Hazare and other leaders of the movement generated or thrust upon themselves had their basis in the insufficient understanding of larger politics and the absence of balanced judgement about different political events and experiences that dictated the course of the nation and the contributions of individual politicians to nation-building.

The movement as a whole was perceived as being opposed to politics and politicians in general. This perception gained ground soon after Anna Hazare began his indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on April 5. This forcefully highlighted the vacuum left by mainstream politics in the area of tackling corruption as also the reverberations any focussed action on this value-based issue can generate in society. Undoubtedly, this was the core strength of the movement. And it was this that compelled the leadership of all mainstream political parties, ranging from the principal opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left parties, as also several regional parties, to express their solidarity with the movement. The Congress, which heads the United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre, ultimately succumbed to the core strength of the movement.

The movement did display an inclination towards overreaction in certain manifestations of this core strength. Hazare likened his “fast unto death”, whose objective was essentially to force the government to introduce a sterner Lokpal Bill, to a second freedom struggle. “This is the next independence struggle. After a long struggle lasting from 1857 to 1946, the Britishers were uprooted, but the situation never improved. This independence struggle is aimed to deliver justice to the poor,” he stated repeatedly. Other leaders of the movement also expressed disdain and distrust for mainstream politics and politicians for failing to end corruption in free India.

The vehemence with which this theme was played out seemed to indicate a total rejection of electoral politics and its champions, so much so that some commentators wondered whether “the movement would overrun Indian parliamentary democracy”. Several streams of the polity, including leaders of the Congress, the BJP, the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party, were openly critical of this growing distrust of politics and the political process. The leaders of these parties and social commentators cautioned against the dangers involved in the total negation of parliamentary democracy and stressed the importance of electoral politics and politicians who practise it. The social activist Harsh Mander pointed out that corruption was a complex issue and that treating the Jan Lokpal as investigator, prosecutor and judge rolled into one would be highly dangerous.

Hazare's commendation of the individual contributions of certain politicians followed this reaction from political parties and socio-political observers. In a sense, it was a corrective to the vehement attack on electoral politics and politicians. But the larger picture that emerged from all this exposed the movement's insufficient political understanding and absence of balanced judgment on political leadership. Naturally, this triggered sustained and controversial debates at several fora.

Central to the controversy was the praise that Hazare showered on Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi by clubbing him with Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. Hazare said Modi and Nitish Kumar had done good work in their respective States and that other Chief Ministers should emulate them. This evoked a backlash, with several political leaders and commentators demanding to know “how Modi's criminal masterminding of the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat would be worthy of emulation”. Hazare sought to qualify his statement by clarifying that he was only praising the rural development work carried out by Modi and Nitish Kumar and that as a Gandhian he would not justify communalism or any action that generated communal disharmony.

But, despite this, nobody condoned Hazare for his praise of Modi, including those who participated in and supported his crusade against corruption. Activists of the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), such as Medha Patkar, Aruna Roy, Sandeep Pandey and Kavita Srivastava, stated unequivocally that Hazare's endorsement of Modi was “unfortunate and unacceptable”. The NAPM statement not only highlighted Modi's alleged complicity in the 2002 riots but also questioned the BJP regime's claims about the progress it has made in rural development. It pointed out that the Modi government had no commitment to probity in public life as was evident from its failure to appoint a Lokayukta (ombudsman) for over six years even as it was selling land to a clutch of industrialists at throwaway prices, which was resulting in scams, displacement of people and loss of livelihoods. “The common people of India have supported the battle against corruption with faith in our campaign and credibility as people's movements based on the core values of equity, justice, democracy, secularism and plurality. This should not be compromised at any cost,” the NAPM said.

The NAPM statement is significant in the context of the efforts by the BJP leadership to present Hazare and the movement led by him as “our own” and make it part of the party's political campaign. Some Congress leaders aided this move by branding Hazare as an agent of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the leading constituent of the Sangh Parivar, which includes the BJP. In his blog on the fast undertaken by Hazare, former Deputy Prime Minister and BJP veteran L.K. Advani wrote: “I wish government realises that in both cases – the opposition's success in getting a JPC, and in Anna's success about a law for Lokpal, the principal contributory has been the UPA government itself, which by now has earned the singular reputation of being the most corrupt government independent India has seen.”

In the context of the various interpretations and responses to the anti-corruption movement and Hazare's comments, social activist Mukul Sharma points out that “the anti-corruption movement in India today is not beyond the categories of gender, caste, authority, democracy, nationalism and ultra-nationalism . Far from transcending them, the movement is transforming and being transformed by the implicit deployment of such categories.” Pointing to Hazare's projects in Maharashtra, particularly in Ralegan Siddhi village, Sharma says that “in spite of the apparent diversities that characterise the various elements that make up Anna Hazare, there is an underlying thread of unity in his ideological positioning. Not only is this authority deeply rooted in the dominant socio-political tradition of the region, it is often blind to many basic and universal issues of rights, democracy and justice. Personal moral authority, while contributing in harnessing water and other natural and human resources for the betterment of economic conditions of the villagers, simultaneously also raises significant questions about its relationship to the making of a democratic, critical community, free from burdens of force, punishment, coercion, obligation, patronage, charity and piety. The present movement led by him, too, reflects some of these elements.” (Quotation from Sharma's article “The making of Anna Hazare”, which is based on extensive field work done in Ralegan Siddhi over some years. The article is part of Mukul Sharma's forthcoming book Green and Saffron: Hindu Nationalism and Indian Environmental Politics.) Clearly, the democracy perspective in Hazare's social and political personality needs closer scrutiny before the movement is hailed as the second freedom struggle.

Pending that evaluation, the effect of the agitation at Jantar Mantar and the lesson it holds for the polity in general and mainstream politics in particular are significant. In the medium term, or perhaps even long term, it marks a stage where the country's politics has come to accept, albeit in bits and pieces, civil society intervention in policymaking and in the framing of laws. At the more immediate level, it has channelled the anger felt by large sections of the population against corruption in general and corruption by politicians in particular. In that sense, the movement can force corrective measures – short-, medium- and long-term – from the political class as a whole. Beyond this, expectations of fundamental changes resulting from a civil society movement bereft of a clear political and ideological thrust would be far-fetched. Historically, legal and policy matters such as land reforms and Mandal Commission recommendations have brought about far-reaching changes in the lives of millions of Indians. How the Jan Lokpal Bill will fare in comparison to these path-breaking policy initiatives is a question that may fail to evoke an enthusiastic response right away.

Frontline, Volume 28, Issue 09, 23 April-6 May, 2011, http://frontline.in/stories/20110506280901000.htm


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

"Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...

"Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

"Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

Objectives | About Us | Workshops | Disclaimer
share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close