Over the last week not only the corporate Indian electronic media but people in various cities of India have joined themselves in solidarity with Anna Hazare and others in the search for a anti-corruption regime. They are today celebrating what they are terming as their victory. Yet the support received from these sections by Anna Hazare is not unprecedented. Such mobilisation of 'civil society' has been seen often in recent times on varied issues such as the Jessica Lal murder case, the Arushi Talwar case, the Ruchika Girhotra case and so on. In all such cases public mobilisation has been aided by a vigilante media. But in most such cases the target of 'civil society' ire have been the law enforcement agencies. With Anna Hazare the target is the Indian Parliament and the political system.
The mobilisation has also been helped by tremendous anger among wide sections of the Indian people over the instances of mega-corruption which have come to light during the period of the Prime Ministership of Manmohan Singh. However, in this mood of euphoria and almost unwritten code in which everyone on your Facebook friendlist have signed up their support for Anna Hazare and the 'Jan' Lokpal Bill, and that much of this support has actually translated into actual attendance at Jantar Mantar, India Gate or candle marches in different cities and campuses - there have been a few people who have dared to question the motives and processes of this movement. In a beautiful piece titled At the Risk of Heresy: Why I am not Celebrating with Anna Hazare Suddhabarata Sengupta has articulated some of these concerns. Sudhabrata points out the undemocratic provisions in the Jan Lokpal Bill, its authoritarian moorings and an impatience with representative democracy. Suddhabrata also highlights the selective activism of the middlle class 'civil society' in choosing certain issues for its attention and being mute about certain others - like Irom Sharmil'a agitation against military brutality in the North-East.
I would, however, like to highlight another aspect of the Anna Hazare show which is equally troubling. It has been read as one of the virtues of the movement - is a disdain for the entire political class. While the public fury against Om Prqakash Chautala and Uma Bharti is understandable - what is not is Anna Hazare's insistence that he is not willing to associate with any politician, almost suggesting therefore, that all politicians are corrupt. Hazare and his friends, however, had no qualms about sharing the dais with the corporate media and publicity hungry celebrities - many of whom are have dubious distinctions themselves (eg. Barkha Dutt being a player in the 2G scam and Amitabh Bacchan's income tax records). I am not arguing that Anna Hazare should have shared his platform with political parties and their representatives. But his reiteration of the middle class adage that all politicians and all political parties are corrupt is another aspect of the undemocratic moorings of this movement.
Politics and therefore, political parties cannot be wished away. The attitude of the 'Jan' Lokpal Activist actually help the reformist agenda of maintaining the system and would prevent systemic change. You would now have, if they are successful, an undemocratically selective and unaccountable 'watchdog'. It is the same point which Montek Singh Ahluwalia harps on in favour of privatisation of public services - that regulation can fight anomalies and corruption. However, it has been argued that corruption cannot be fought without changing the class structure in India - it cannot be fought by subverting democracy but through deepening democracy.
In fact, Anna Hazare's act is deeply political and so he too is a 'politician'. May we raise questions about the symbolism of his movement - the huge portrait of 'Bharat Mata' on the podium lends suspicion towards a particular brand of politics which not all would like to associate with.
The mobilisation has also been helped by tremendous anger among wide sections of the Indian people over the instances of mega-corruption which have come to light during the period of the Prime Ministership of Manmohan Singh. However, in this mood of euphoria and almost unwritten code in which everyone on your Facebook friendlist have signed up their support for Anna Hazare and the 'Jan' Lokpal Bill, and that much of this support has actually translated into actual attendance at Jantar Mantar, India Gate or candle marches in different cities and campuses - there have been a few people who have dared to question the motives and processes of this movement. In a beautiful piece titled At the Risk of Heresy: Why I am not Celebrating with Anna Hazare Suddhabarata Sengupta has articulated some of these concerns. Sudhabrata points out the undemocratic provisions in the Jan Lokpal Bill, its authoritarian moorings and an impatience with representative democracy. Suddhabrata also highlights the selective activism of the middlle class 'civil society' in choosing certain issues for its attention and being mute about certain others - like Irom Sharmil'a agitation against military brutality in the North-East.
I would, however, like to highlight another aspect of the Anna Hazare show which is equally troubling. It has been read as one of the virtues of the movement - is a disdain for the entire political class. While the public fury against Om Prqakash Chautala and Uma Bharti is understandable - what is not is Anna Hazare's insistence that he is not willing to associate with any politician, almost suggesting therefore, that all politicians are corrupt. Hazare and his friends, however, had no qualms about sharing the dais with the corporate media and publicity hungry celebrities - many of whom are have dubious distinctions themselves (eg. Barkha Dutt being a player in the 2G scam and Amitabh Bacchan's income tax records). I am not arguing that Anna Hazare should have shared his platform with political parties and their representatives. But his reiteration of the middle class adage that all politicians and all political parties are corrupt is another aspect of the undemocratic moorings of this movement.
Politics and therefore, political parties cannot be wished away. The attitude of the 'Jan' Lokpal Activist actually help the reformist agenda of maintaining the system and would prevent systemic change. You would now have, if they are successful, an undemocratically selective and unaccountable 'watchdog'. It is the same point which Montek Singh Ahluwalia harps on in favour of privatisation of public services - that regulation can fight anomalies and corruption. However, it has been argued that corruption cannot be fought without changing the class structure in India - it cannot be fought by subverting democracy but through deepening democracy.
In fact, Anna Hazare's act is deeply political and so he too is a 'politician'. May we raise questions about the symbolism of his movement - the huge portrait of 'Bharat Mata' on the podium lends suspicion towards a particular brand of politics which not all would like to associate with.
