The Anna Hazare campaign against corruption in favor of the Lokpal Bill finally came to an end with the Parliament debating the Bill and seemingly accepting to consider some of the major demands made by 'Team-Anna'. In the post-protest scenario it becomes important to reflect upon this event and learn the lessons for the future.
The Indian left has branded the movement as typically "middle class" as it's definitional limits remains confined to corruption only as governmental one. What about the corruption of Global Capital/ Corporate sector, NGOs and Media itself asks Arundhati Roy in her critique of the movement. Partha Chatterjee in his article AGAINST CORRUPTION = AGAINST POLITICS argues on similar lines as he believes that the movement of Anna is a movement of Neo-Liberal Capitalist class which has emerged post 1991 and therefore the issue of corruption in public sector (which no more remains to be the most coveted sector for middle class Indians in the neo liberal era of corporatization). The less reflective thinkers have simply branded the movement as proto-fascist or even compared it to Kar seva type RSS oriented movement.
Marxists have defined the movement as one which leads us away from REAL issues of class struggle and thus is a part and parcel of ruse of bourgeoisie politics. The dalit activists are also all too unhappy with the 'vande matram' and 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' slogans and indeed they are, sadly, having a demonstration at Jantar Mantar tomorrow, 5th September 2011 against the Anna campaign!
So much so. But let us begin with asking certain basic questions. What is the role of Middle Class in India? Are we naive enough to fool ourselves into believing that Middle Class will help to strengthen the struggle of the working classes? No middle class in the world has ever done that...Middle class can only represent the anger felt due to a system which is tilted towards ruling classes. Of course, middle class remains imbued in an aspiration to be like the ruling classes. The point is that middle classes of India are having a struggle in its own manner so why not be a part of it and then critically give some direction on the lines of our heart's desire rather than boycotting it.
When the left says that the movement is taking us away from the real issues the it is pertinent to ask if there is any movement in India which is closer to addressing the REAL issues? Which is that movement? Then why can't Arundhati had joined the movement (as her erstwhile comrade Medha Patkar did) and appealed to include the issues of Global Capital? The left intellectuals are behaving in an ultra elitist fashion. As someone described them as eating cashew nuts and sipping tea when masses are on roads. This cashew-nut-intellectualism does not even recognize the fact that Anna-movement, though limited in scope, signals towards to hidden potential in people against the establishment which is required to be given a proper direction.
Women with children participated in this movement which predominantly remained without any destruction of public property, riot or other forms of obscenity. It is sad to even compare something like this to Kar Seva of Babri Demolition! What if the left intellectual class had joined the campaign and infused their critiques so as to use the mass support to further their agenda. This is an opportunity missed by the Left again. History is testimony to the fact that even BJP and Left parties fought the battle together in 1975 Emergency against the establishment. And left swept Bengal in 1977 when in 1971 there was Congress government in Bengal.
May be it is true that all those who joined the Anna campaign were not well-versed with the technical legal provisions of Lok Pal Bill. However, should that make us callously ignore the reality that so many people participated in the campaign against establishment with HONESTY? Because this to me is the key to understand the Anna movement. Intelligentsia should not not be blinded towards this fact unless it has become incorrigibly dis-topic. Anna movement represents a non-violent move of the middle classes against the establishment and every serious minded person who can dream for a change should not oppose it. The question is not that we support Anna or not the question is should we recognize the spirit of 'We, the people...' and find ways to transform it for a more meaningful struggle against establishment.
Those who are against the masses involved in this process seems to be echoing the old sarcastic phrase of Bertolt Brecht that if people can't be trusted to vote properly "let us change the People!" If that is what is the standpoint of the post-modern intelligentsia I leave it to the reader to decide as to what would be the revolutionary future of India!
I would broadly in full agreement with this broad approach of your comment. Left has to move along with the people's movement and not aloof from it. Perhaps, that is the reason that as gifted an author as Arundhati Roy has failed to appeal to the larger public or intellectuals (except a miniscule maoists) with the arguments that she tendered in favor of naxalites. If she had joined the protest it would have given a new color to it. Left had no voice in this whole affair.
ReplyDeleteThose who are consequence-centric asking the question whether this popular uprising can eradicate corruption needs some thinking. This is because are we then saying that the legal minds who were struggling for 42 years for an institution like Lokpal were foolish. Second, if you can improve the Bill presented by Team Anna then you have to join the campaign and not just do the 'arm-chair-intellectualism' and do nothing discussions.
How many times the Parliament has debated the Bill so seriously and people all over India watched the debates with such enthusiasm. How can we discount these elements of a campaign. I appreciate the point made very well by the author that there is no other movement which is close to so called REAL issues and not joining this one only alienate the left or any serios-minded intellectual thought.
I find myself agreeing with this article on so many levels. I do particularly see the need to rethink the Marxist critique. Marxist's should see this movements as a means of correcting a power imbalance,a lack of power with the common people has caused this uprising. People are now beginning to question why the are tormented at every opportunity by the government, particularly when thy dissent. ASPA and other such measures are clear ultra virus of what the government can do, people are finally beginning to question the legitimacy of some of the governments depraved acts.Hence, I see this movement as not only as a means to curb corruption in a monetary sense, I see it more as an uprising to curbs the evils of parliament in every sense.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything that the above article is trying to convey and I really do wish that the bill passes. The legal technicalities is not something that I so much as even care about. Simply because this is more than just a legal battle, the battle field is far more moral and if this bill passes, I see it as a victory of the oppressed.
Corruption is a real issue and to give it a class colouring is to blur the facts. What constitutes satisfaction is subjective. Corruption is present in all ranks and on all sides. The activities of the Left itself while ruling for so many years in Bengal bear witness to this fact. ‘...an opportunity missed by the Left again’- Indeed! To ask for accountability is the right of all cutting across classes as was evident during this movement. The abstinence or reluctance of the Left as noted by the author is indicative of this fact alongside a shared understanding across parties of the people’s anger and wishes.
ReplyDeleteAll are accountable and issues such as inflation also require deliberation. I wonder if we could we say in the words of Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee that corruption is ‘the emperor of all maladies’.
It was a people’s movement as duly noted by the author for a good cause- Ensuring the accountability of those in positions of authority taking individual and collective decisions on behalf of the people and thereby minimizing and hopefully eradicating instances of misconduct in the long run. In doing so it showed the gaps in the system which needed to be plugged. The will of the people could not be ignored by the arrogant and nonchalant establishment. After all one still possessed the right to vote in a democracy even if one did not stand for elections as a candidate oneself. Heralding the establishment of a new institution the movement also called for reforms of the existing rules and procedures.
But was it all peaches and cream? Some things were unsettling. E.g. The mindset that- ‘If you are not with us you are against us’ and as to what constitutes ‘with us’ is decided by somebody other than oneself. Freedom of perception(s), to express them peaceably without harming anyone and the liberty of choice e.g. to abstain or participate are vital components of a democracy and it holds true for all. To continue, recalling the words of Lord Acton ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ one needs to tread with caution in conceptualizing the institution of Lokpal itself. There also arises the need to look at its practical and functional aspects.