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 | The subtle discrimination in civil society by Harish S Wankhede

The subtle discrimination in civil society by Harish S Wankhede

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jun 15, 2011   modified Modified on Jun 15, 2011

There’s a bogey of news to show the complementary association of Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev on the issue of corruption and black money. It seems as if both of them are fighting the same battle against the Congress-led regime and supplementing each other in their respective struggles. Both of them have emerged as the most visible faces of the contemporary civil society, pressurising the government to take crucial steps against corruption. However, there is a concrete political and cultural divide between the two parallel movements. After the agitation at Jantar Mantar, Hazare attracted the courtesy and respect from the government and is now with his team comfortably drafting the proposal of the bill (with all the state sponsored remunerations coming his way). Ramdev’s protest, on the other hand, took a dramatic turn. He was not only humiliated and strangled during the protest but was also turned away from the capital immediately. He is now termed as the stooge of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and the files of the property he has amassed are now being opened by the Income Tax Department.

The question is why such differentiated treatment when both of them are almost raising the identical issues of corruption, black money and government’s nepotism? The answer lies in the fact that there is an overt distinction between the two, based on its specific class/caste sensibilities, political culture and the audiences they appeal to. The government cracked down on Ramdev because he has the potential to create a mass hysteria against the government led by the Congress, whereas Hazare is passive and can be used to mobilise support for the government’s ‘pro-people’ action later. The distinction is also done by the urban educated elite (mainly in New Delhi), who stayed away from the populist-communal agitation of Ramdev but cautiously lend its support to the quasi-intellectual protest led by Hazare and his team. Such duality within the movement demonstrates the limitation of the civil society to produce a viable alternative to the ideals of parliamentary democracy.

Hazare has been projected as a modern-day Gandhian, which is one of the important forces to attract the ‘not so political’ middle class in India. The team which is associating him has the typical middle class credentials (a former IPS officer, two reputed lawyers and a popular social activist). It has also attracted certain ‘secular’ motifs by allying with the English-speaking sadhu Swami Agnivesh and one or two Muslim leaders. The middle class sensitivities are attracted towards this group, because it has a sophisticated appeal based on the norms of democratic struggle and a peaceful gathering. These professionals showed a determinant ‘non-political’ aggression to formulate the Jan Lokpal Bill and are cautiously associating with the government. Thus, this team ensembles certain celebrated ideals of classic bourgeoisie, mainly secularism, recourse to democratic protest and due respect to the process of the law and constitutional validity. A standard example of the civil society activism in a liberal democracy!

In contrast to Hazare’s secular-Gandhian avatar, Ramdev, in his saffron attire, got easily painted as a fundamentalist right-winger. First, he disobeyed the state orders and a ‘five-star’ agitation was launched at the Ramlila Maidan without permission. This act was seen as provocative and disturbing. The middle class usually avoid participating in such protests which have impetus to disturb peace and security. Secondly, his overt nationalist rhetoric and association of people with communal credentials (Sadhvi Ritambara and later Uma Bharti) sealed his fate as a communal sadhu. The views delivered during the protest were political and not of ‘good taste’, for example demands to have ‘technical education in non-English languages’ and ‘hanging the corrupt’. The politically concerned sections among the urban middle class, therefore, kept a safe distance from the Ramlila Maidan during those days. Lastly, it had no intellectual or professional support from any influential section of society. Unfortunately for him, the notorious khap panchayats voiced support for the agitating baba.

Further, it was a ‘mass mobilisation’ – around 30,000 to 40,000 people gathered during the protest – of commoners, mainly Ramdev’s followers from north Indian states. People reached the spot by trains, buses or long marches. Their attire was conventional, and they used rural dialects in their conversations. The media also telecasted the other street protests at various urban centres, including the Bajarang Dal’s announcement of support at Bhubaneshwar. Ramdev’s protest thus appeared quasi-lumpen and had conservative and violent standards (which are now overtly demonstrated by Ramdev’s own confession of ‘building an army of 11,000 youth’). He had a non-compromising attitude, which later developed into an open confrontation with the state’s authority.

On the other hand, the individuals, groups and non-governmental organisations which gathered at Jantar Mantar for Hazare’s protest had peculiar characteristics, different from Ramdev’s mobilisation. Most supporters at Hazare’s protest were curious visitors compelled by the media to demonstrate their ‘social’ responsibility. During the ‘protest show’ some people especially dressed to impress the audience, while others wanted to have their ‘15 minutes of fame’ and went for photo-ops, which were later uploaded on Facebook for comments.

There were also bands and skits performed by the ‘concerned’ students. Many even got their faces painted to express solidarity with the cause. In the evenings, some curious parents (with utterly branded attire) could be spotted with their kids, sitting on their cars eating ice-creams. What they would otherwise do at the India Gate, they were now doing at Jantar Mantar. Importantly, the protest also attracted celebrities from the entertainment industry – Raza Murad and Anupam Kher – and even A-list stars – Aamir Khan and Hritik Roshan – helping the event get the right PR. Thus, it was a comfortable protest, one where the elite could easily quench their thirst by paying Rs25 for a litre of mineral water, sold right outside the protest site.

Both the movements were described by the media as the resurgence of civil society for a better change in governance and against corruption. However, the movement led by the middle class elites (most of them are accidentally upper caste too) under the leadership of Hazare is exclusivist and typical bourgeois in nature. It undermines the parliamentary democracy and pressurises the government with its quasi-ethical sensationalism. On the other hand, Ramdev may be socially located among the OBCs (he was born as a Yadav) and his agitation may have considerable mass appeal, but it is infected with dangerous communal venom (now openly supported by the RSS). The conservative and violent apparel of Ramdev’s agitation is accepted by the BJP, and the Congress is comfortable with the ‘critical appreciation’ of Hazare’s team. Thus both movements attract two distinct brands of audiences in their respective protests with contesting political values. The civil society appears as a collective unit against the government, but, in reality, it is ghettoised on caste/class considerations and has distinct political ambitions within it.

Harish S Wankhede teaches political science at the University of Delhi.
enarish@gmail.com

Tehelka, 19 June, 2011, http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Ws130611Corruption.asp

Tagged with: lokpal bill



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