It is the flavour of the season and hence has found a place on this blog too.
Anna Hazare and his India Against Corruption movement have just completed round 2 of their battle against the politicians, in and out of power. Anna broke his 288-hours long fast earlier this morning on the back of the Indian parliament passing a resolution yesterday to agree 'in principle', to his 3 key demands on the content of the bill. Thanks to Tata Sky, I haven't been able to track the various developments related to the movement for the last 2 days. I have been depending on the more 'old school' method of consuming news in the last two days, the morning newspapers.
My sense of the the mood that prevails in the country, from what I read in the papers every morning, is one of jubilation. The movement has been projected as the common man's fight against the powerful egalitarian class. There seems to be a sense of achievement and empowerment in people at large, due to the developments of the last few days leading to the Anna breaking his fast this morning. A great victory for democracy!
Or is it?
Earlier last week I found myself debating the pros and cons of the 'Anna Methodology' with a few of my colleagues. I found myself questioning the tactics adopted by the social activist and his team. Mind you, I am all for the cause. I strongly believe that corruption is like termites, eating into the foundations of our social systems and rendering them hollow. And I fully support a movement aimed at making the laws in this country strong to rid us of the scourge of corruption. However, to dictate terms to a democratic institution like the parliament for calling off the fast, to me, is equivalent to blackmail. More importantly, it sets a dangerous precedent in a country like ours. It can result in a free for all. It concerns me. And it should concern you.
There are voices within the core of Team Anna as well who feel the same way. Justice Santosh Hegde has expressed similar views in public and not surprisingly he is no longer part of the core team. I am sure, Justice Hegde, like me, sees an element of populism in the movement. Anna and his team at times appear to be playing to the gallery, a rather large one too! Anna's movement and fasts have been compared to the ones undertaken by Mahatma Gandhi. I think there is a fundamental difference between the two. Mahatma Gandhi never allowed a situation of 'me versus you' to develop when he agitated...the movement and the fasts focused on the causes.
My argument with my colleagues was that in any negotiation it is not advisable to take an extreme stand as a starting point. It gives very little room to manoeuvre to arrive at a 'win-win' solution. Moreover, it results in a loss of face. From my perspective, though the country at large might have forgotten it, Team Anna's main demand when he embarked on the fast was to pass the Jan Lokpal Bill in the parliament before August 30. Anna has not been able to achieve that.
What has been achieved is a 'pregnant victory' which promises more than it delivers. For the sake of the strong democratic traditions of this country, I certainly hope that it finally does deliver.
Take care.
13 comments:
To me, democracy is a set of rules. If Anna Hazare and the others did not break any of the rules of democracy, their methods were democratic.
For example, their 'pressure tactics' on the government were moral in nature (hunger strike), rather than violent. They used the media to their advantage, again a perfectly legal tactic. Mahatma Gandhi was really good at handling media, and it's a perfectly legitimate tool for protest.
In that sense, they did not set any wrong precedents, imho.
If others use the same tactics going forward, the impact of these tactics will be diluted, until someone else comes up with even more powerful tactics within the democratic setup.
If you outlaw such tactics, there could be problems down the road for other activists.
I share your main concern: will all this hoopla result in something meaningful at the end of the day? Or will it make matters worse?
Wonderfully written Suresh!!! My opinion is, there is no other resolve except the one executed by Anna and team to counter 'thugs-driven' politics like our country's. A non-violent agitation for a grave cause by a veteran like Anna backed by apt representatives like Kiran Bedi, Arvind Khejriwal,Medha Patkar is what we need to bring an amendment of this magnitude and hence has been acknowledged by a wide spread intellectual group and masses across the country. What else can we do?? Let us hope that our democracy is not so week yet to allow this movement to set an example for any unsolicited boneless demands to get laterally generated in the future.
@Samir: I agree that the movement adhered to the principle of non-violence. My only disconnect is the attempt to extract a stated outcome by means of putting a gun to the parliament's head. In spite of it, the tactics did not work, because from the outset, the demand of getting the bill passed by August 30, without any element of serious debate was impractical.
I also beg to differ from the point of view that a 'fast unto death' is moral. A hunger strike as a token of protest is different from a suicidal fast unto death. This is punishable under the CPC.
Democracy is indeed a set of rules, the adherance to which needs to be not only in letter but in spirit as well.
Again, am all for the cause; but feel that the methods adopted smacked of populism and blackmail.
By the way, I haven't yet discussed this with my Dad. I should ask his opinion. What do you think he will say?
Cheers!
Suresh
@Nalini: Thanks! The question is: Did Anna Hazare and his team suddenly discover this 'thugs-driven' politics. It has always been there and growing. I do not question the cause; only the methods. In a democracy the means matter as much as the end. And in this case, the means were not entirely democratic. This sets a dangerous precedent.
Cheers!
Suresh
You viewpoint is very valid.I don't deny.But,sometimes, we need to take bold steps in life without the fear of breaking protocols from 1 door to bring justice from another door. It is similar to subjecting crops to insecticides (the farmer also has the chance of getting injured accidentally).I said, the team has at least taken the primitive steps of pioneering this movement in a Post Gandhian era. Unless and until, it is non-violent and does not give rise to damage of any public life and property, no method is a gun on Parliament's head. Pardonable methods (or demands) will not reap such massive support. If there is no room for ethics from the current Govt, let us tackle them their way(if you feel it is a blackmail).It is a REVOLUTION to bring new Laws in democracy, new changes to democracy. Laws of a country are made for the people of that country who make the democracy. So, why not this method at this time??
Can you suggest appropriate non-violent revolution in this scenario...a democratic one ?? Even if Anna or any from the team ever wanted to stand for the Lok sabha( to remove thug-driven politics )corruption prevails in our voting system as well.Opaque method of buying votes. Did you think Anna would just like that get support from veteran IPS like Kiran and the best breed social intellects like Arvind? When 'Cash for Vote' is spectated in Mute status in the same democracy, why not this humble protest??They too would have contemplated on the same questions as you and made various calculations from all perspectives before bringing out this movement with an old man, Anna as a bait(in the right sense). So,this revolution is the best to de-root marred politics and practices in the name of democracy. no other choice.MM Singh agreed to it, be happy for that Suresh !! But, even I have the same question as Samir's ( above ).The result is what we need.
What would your Dad say? I think he wouldn't mind the pressure tactics used by Anna Hazare, but he would have preferred a more political approach by the protestors (float a political party, participate in elections, etc.). What do you think?
Btw, Arundhati Roy's point about replacing one oligarchy with two is very solid, no?
@Nalini: Non-violence? Dinesh Yadav, a AHA supporter, immolated himself near Rajghat. Violence on self is the worst kind of violence, including a fast unto death. Life is a precious gift.
A protest drumming up the support of the masses, but not threatening the Parliament with a fast unto death if a Bill is not passed would be democratic and non-violent.
Cheers!
Suresh
@Samir: I think he would not have agreed with the AHA's approach, specifically on this issue. I will ask him.
Arundhati Roy has a very good point. I read through the contents of the Jan Lokpal draft again after I read her comment and realise that, she does really have a very solid point!
Cheers!
Suresh
@Samir: Zoya Hasan seems to have similar views as well. Hope you can read the entire editorial that was publish in the papers. This one is an excerpt..
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-30/edit-page/29941667_1_corruption-lokayuktas-team-anna
Cheers!
Suresh
Anna's team never directed anything like that, nor encourages any such act as a part of this protest. Dinesh doesn't have brains?..How can we blame this protest for an individual's actions. For. ex ., Imagine, you have been the best judge after thorough analysis from all perspectives and given your subordinate staff a poor appraisal rating and he/she cannot withstand this and punish themselves out of sheer emotions. Will you take responsibility for their foolish act? No, is it n't...same way.Lol:))
@Nalini: If you lead a movement of this magnitude and incite popular emotions, you have to be ready to take responsibility for how various people react to it.
Cheers!
Suresh
@Suresh: am late for the party but nevertheless my two cents:
Without getting into the merits on the means of the protest, I think Anna Hazare has been able to take very high moral high ground which none of our politicians can match, cutting across party lines.
Comparing Anna Hazare to M Gandhi is not right, imho. The situation is vastly different now and you have a ruling class that is hardened white and blue collar criminals in the parliament. When you have people like Manish Tewari and Abhishek Singhvi as the ruling party spokeperson, you cant avoid being aggressive.
Our people are generally starved of entertainment in their day to day lives and so I would discount 75% of the crowd which turned up for these rallies across India. Having said that, there is a genuine discontent brewing across all sections of the society.
I dont accept that it is a middle class inspired/lead agitation. This is again a pro-Congress media tweaking just to limit the damage. Corruption is not only affecting middle-class but affects every other class!!
Lastly, just read yesterday, that this Anna Hazare movement is handiwork of some MNC businesses in India who want to cut-down/eliminate the amount of bribes they pay to get their business rolling. Quite an interesting point to ponder about.
Venkat,
Yes, indeed an interesting point; could be true as well, what with the likes of Deepak Parekh and Ratan Tata shouting from the rooftops about inefficiencies in the government for the last few months!
I do not disagree with your view that the Anna Hazare movement was necessary at this point of time. I am only against holding the Parliament to ransom. It won't work and it didn't.
Cheers!
Suresh
Post a Comment