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.