The term Gandhian is open to many interpretations. It could imply non-violence or civil disobedience. It could imply a back-to-the-roots spirituality. Or an impressive attempt to reform unjust practices. But it has also come to mean striking a chord with the masses through some well-thought out, creative strategies that no modern political spin machine could have held a candle to. The British Empire couldn’t have cared if some Gujarati lawyer went on a hunger strike; it’s another story if that strike could inspire millions to come out.
Millions though his followers might not be but Anna Hazare is Gandhian in that sense of the word. Whereas the Indian government made one gaffe after another, including arresting the septuagenarian, the lean machine on the other side made efforts to get the best press, to reach out the most to the people. Team Hazare does press well.
But there is one critical difference. Whereas the Mahatma took on the British Empire, Mr Hazare has started his movement against a democratically elected political government. Whereas the freedom movement strove for democracy, aspects of the proposed Lokpal bill could be distinctly termed anti-democratic.
The Indian urban middle-class has been courted – effectively – by the whole idea of the anti-corruption ombudsman. One that would not effectively be accountable to anyone, least of all smelly politicians. This is a sentiment that would well resonate across the border. Already there is talk in the local media of a Hazare-like movement. But it won’t gather as much steam.
Perhaps it would do the Indians well to seek some advice from Pakistan. Though corruption here is as rampant as there, the success and fluency of Indian democracy denies the Indians the perspective about these issues that Pakistanis have come to acquire. Anti-politician sentiments are caustic and dangerous. The idea that one politician should be replaced with another doesn’t appeal to those who believe politicians should be out of certain areas altogether.
The Indians might not have an army breathing down their necks but they do have an oppressive bureaucracy and murderous local gangs. It also has an increasingly adventurist activist judiciary which is motivated by the press and its parochial urban interests. The politician is the best – not perfect, or even good – entity to shield the wretched of the earth from all that.
Even if there are no ostensible ulterior motives involved, it would do us well to view with suspicion those who demand vast, unaccountable powers.