Anti Establishment tone of the Civil Society

One thing I have observed from Anna and other similar efforts by the people. is ‘we the people of India’ feel helpless and are ready to tolerate anyone and anything if one gives hope of a better tomorrow.

Anna episode is not the first such effort to eradicate corruption. People try to forget the past and support the new leader who can ‘fight against the government’ for them. People almost always support the one who speak against the government (definitely anti-establishment attitude is common). But the leader, especially the people around take the support for granted and more often than not abuse the authority given to them. People at the end get disillusioned, disappointed and dump the leader and revert back.

This time a good Lokpal Bill is on cards and will become law. What tactics is being used in the mean time is that all necessary? In Hisar the Team Anna, campaigned (maybe Anna have sanctioned the campaigning), but has the people of the country at large sanctioned?

Once the country has supported Anna and his Team, does it mean whatever they say is justified. And even if not, ‘we the hapless people of India’ have to tolerate? Do they have inherent right to speak on anything on any issue including Jammu and Kashmir? One can send his department dues to the PM? If found to have over drawn, then return the amount and self-declare innocent?

Why Civil Society in India always is a coterie of a few and rest all are to say ‘Jinda Baad’? Why we can’t take the corrective measures when the Civil Society is losing its track. Don’t we have better people to replace those who are becoming arrogant and misusing people’s power? Why can’t we question what Civil Society is doing? On the one hand, they say the discussions of the Lokpal Drafting Committee should be made public, and on the other hand, we get to know the decisions of Civil Society members and not the proceedings.

Should it be assumed that the handful people of the Civil Society are the sacred people, like the ROYALS in the ancient time, who will only do good for the people.

It is easy to mobilize people against government in India at any given point of time. Because majority of people feel the government is not chosen by them. Why:

• Low vote percentage (so far 56-64%)
• In First Pass the Post system the winning candidate may not have the majority of the votes
• The party which people defeated in the election may find parallel route of coalition to enter into government 

A government may have support of only 30-40% people!!

We should strengthen Civil Society and not surrender to it. The final aim should be getting the work done through the normal political process, using the power of Vote. Please do not say we already used our democratic power to choose a government. We did not do that properly. We must accept.

Phenomenon called Anna:

Anna, a name needs no introduction today. From Kisan Baburao Hazare to Anna Hazare to Anna he has travelled a long journey through sheer hard work, dedication and altruistic outlook.

Anna is a rare example of a ‘self-made-man’, who rises from nowhere and becomes a role model for the masses. He is concerned about problems of people and takes initiatives to solve them. He goes out of the way to help people. At times his ways are innovative and unprecedented. For example, what he has done at Ralegaon Siddhi.

The creativity and out of the way going traits, which make such leaders exceptional also prevents them from joining an organization. They can vividly visualize what is in their mind and how will that yield results, but cannot convince that to people there, hence, the organizations may not allow them to work freely. Besides, organizations have their own discipline and decorum which they least bothered about. Such leaders, therefore, grow like a cult.

They take immense pride in their work and its worth even if it is at a small scale. They want more and more people to get benefitted. But as they try to expand, they face a lot of competition with people whose interests are jeopardised. People also find it difficult to follow an unconventional path, at least in the beginning. For example, Anna’s village, if he wants the whole country to be like that there will many lobbies working against and how many people will be willing to adopt that life style, anyone can guess. At the most such ideal work remains a good example, get recognition, praise and awards, but does not spread. They eventually die as a museum piece! Thus the story ends with Kisan Baburao Hazare to Anna Hazare. Some lucky ones become Anna. How?

To begin with such leader is rigid and reserved. People approach him to get support for their cause, but he could support only a few, because both sides are tied with principles and high conscience. However, he realizes that without collaboration he cannot reach out to more people.

As time passes his experience increases, he becomes confident and is willing to take up larger responsibilities. He starts delegating work and collaborating with newer people. As long as a public interest is served, he is ready to go ahead.

Some more people watch his methodology and growing acceptance, though do not ask to support their cause! They wait till the situations are favourable and one day in the camouflage of a larger nation interest these people (‘sponsor’) with a hidden agenda approach the leader through activists (‘managers’). The leader gets trapped! Once they creep in, a lot of people from widely different areas surround the leader. The movement, to common man looks spontaneously growing. But the disproportionate public and media response is actually managed. Their methodology remains dubious.

The leader takes it as the last battle of his life. He concentrate on his core demand, on that he is still very rigid and show is basic instinct intact, but to some extant his vision is blurs for the minor detail. He seldom bothers about the methodology so long the public interest is served. The leader at times during the course of the movement feels concerned and constrained but feels helpless in the environment largely dominated by the sponsor. The leader remains in the stat of dilemma. But the people around him constantly feed their version of reality and keep him aloof.

Typical structure of such movements is a pivotal figure, managers, supporters and sponsor.

Pivotal figure: A well acceptable personality with unimpeachable credentials, who want to serve the people at any cost till his last breath.

Managers: The people around the pivotal figure who manage the show. They want to serve people and want to ‘establish’ themselves. Some of them are pure managers and other the pointsman of the sponsor. They work diligently and have unquestionable dedication for the cause. They are great people in making who may end up in waiting! They are practical and know the ground reality of organizing a country wide movement which need a lot of resources and networking. They do it.

Sponsor: A group of people with huge resources, who are well connected and well versed in getting his work done. It is the invisible binding force behind the movement, responsible for unexpected and disproportionate support and coverage. His expectations are not clear till very late. He makes entry when there is time to reap the benefits. If the movement fails, the sponsor does not surface and his venture capital is dead! The sponsors are mainly big players and may also include foreign powers. They hi-jack the leader and get their work done and abandon the leader and the public and the nation at large.

Supporters: The common man who always thinks his voice will be heard this time! More often than not he is disappointed. The Anna supporters when go next time to get their work done will have to pay for the same!

Media and spectators are integral in any show, so also here!

Above all these compulsions and constraints, a leader like Anna has enormous power of honesty, dedication and people’s faith. The energy could be and must be utilize to do undoable tasks. Passing JanLokpal is one and there are many more. But not in the way which gives short term gain at the cost of long term pains! It is the responsibility of the political class to harness this energy for public good. They should rise above the party line and work for the people.

Anna and people should distinguish between those who are hi-jacking him for their ulterior motive and those who could be instrumental in making the good laws. Rather than inciting people to go against the ‘rule of law’ he should represent the section of the society whose faith in the Parliamentary democracy is fading and should bring them back to the main stream political process. That will make India strong, not the ‘sponsored’ agitations.

Was JP movement the need of the hour?

After Independence there was a lot of hardship, despite that India achieved a lot and there was a lot to do. Who had time to go for agitations? Why there was the need for JP Movement?

Here are some events in the Indian history:

Ancient civilization

Medieval period, ruled by kings, tyrant at times

British Colonial rule, 200 years

Independence (1947)

Partition and communal violence (1947)

Indo-Pak War (1947)

India became a republic (1950), for the first time in the history

Integration of States and reorganization, one of the toughest tasks to make India, from 17 provinces and 562 princely states

Five year plan initiated (1951)

Heavy industries and public utilities were nationalized

Infrastructure, space, nuclear, AIIMS, IITs, IIMs and lot more on priority, we see the fruits now

Indo-China War (1962)

Indo-Pak War 1965

Price rise, unemployment and food crisis and overall stagnation of economy, currency devaluation (You should evaluate whether the situation was as a result of prevailing conditions, repeated war and other hardship or because of rampant corruption in government?)

Humiliating import of wheat from the US

Green revolution (1965)

Congress got fewer sheets (1967)

Nationalization of Banks (1969)

Split in congress (1969)

Congress won with huge majority (1971) Does that not mean only leaders broke away from congress not the people!

Separation of Bangladesh (1971)

Abolished Privy Purses (for former Indian royalty), and the official recognition of the titles (1971)

Abolished privileges of Indian Civil Servants (1972)

The third Industrial Policy statement (1973) and FERA (1973) which asked foreign companies to sell the majority equity to Indian shareholders (a threat to MNCs and western countries interest)

India tested its first nuclear weapon (1974) (against opposition from major powers)

JP movement 1974

Emergency (1975-77)

Congress’ humiliating defeat (1977),

Morarji became the PM (1977)

Interim government of Charan Singh (1979)

Massive success to interim government so fast!!

Congress bounced back with impressive majority (1980).

What did you observe? Was there a link between the political events and JP movement? Was corruption the main reason for JP movement? Was that the right time for a mass movement, strikes, agitation and ‘bandh’ or the cooperation and hard work was the need of the hour? What was the need of JP movement? Was the government or the central leadership alienated from the public?

To me it seems, JP, an undisputed socialist, well connected, respected by all sections, over the period of time had developed some distance from the ruling party. He wanted to do something for the people of Bihar, and also to show his potential to the government. With these intents he started a movement in Bihar. But his movement got massive support and became pan-India within a short span. Why? The rich people who got affected by nationalization of banks, FERA and breakaway congress leaders and opposition parties and of course foreign powers, crept into the JP movement. It changes the objective and the outcome of the movement. What you feel?

Why Anna type movements are common in India?

In 1947 patriotism as well as pride for our own government was at the highest. But by 1974 people were so dissatisfied that they launched a mass JP movement against the government. Thereafter again in late 80s VP Singh led another movement against the government. Now many warriors of those two movements are in the Parliament and people, in the leadership of Team Anna, are on the roads again, this time against the politicians in general. Why?

‘Feudal King and subjects’ has been the structure of Indian political system for the ages. Then came the British and maintained more or less the same structure. The status quo for the first time was challenged by the freedom fighters. The structure they changed to ‘British-Subjects-Alternate (Freedom Fighters)’. The British were forced to leave the country and they formed a government for the public by the public of the public, form of government elected by them. The structure created is ‘Government-People-Opposition’. A section in the society still does not seem to have adjusted to this structure. At some point or when opportunity comes people do try to look for an alternative; in 1974 it was ‘JP & Party’, in 1989 it was ‘VP Singh & Dal’ now it is Team Anna! They are creating a system of ‘Elected Government (or politicians)-People-Alternate (Civil Society)’. It seems the components are changing but structure remains the same.

Many people still identify establishment as an authoritarian and feudal setup. In ‘First pass the post’ system of election a lot of people left unrepresented and those with minority vote may form a government. Coalition, a recent phenomenon, has also added to this. Those whom people reject in the poll may end-up being a part of government through parallel door of coalition. Other people because of personal reasons, upbringing, brain wash, prejudice or peer group pressure may oppose the system. On the one hand vote percentage is almost always low, on the other hand, a huge crowd may gather for an agitation. It is deep rooted in our society to fight against the establishment on occasions. Therefore, we need people like Anna Hazare or Ramdev.

Neither the governments nor the alternates have been able to meet this group’s expectations, which at times are unrealistic and fantasies. Repeated failure to make their voice heard and meet their demands makes them cynical and resigned, and this spread to other people as well.

Now first of all they must acknowledge that the system is theirs and they need to make it better, rather than to oppose it. They should work on regular basis to strengthen it. Not sporadic participation in the uprising followed by a deep silence! There should be increase participation in elections. People have many opportunities to elect their representative. Time and again it has been proved that people can select or reject a candidate and a government, they need to use that power judiciously. There may not be a short cut, but small-small step can go a long way in strengthening people’s governments.