In the 50s and the 60s, India was known to be a soft state. The allegation was that it could not take hard decisions because of “unfavourable environment in attitudes, cultures and institutions.” The entire Anna Hazare phenomenon shows that we continue to be a soft state.
On the 12th day of the fast, both the government and Anna Hazare, along with his team, were bending backwards to have parliament pass a resolution so that the fast would end by that afternoon. The government’s stand only 24 hours earlier was that no resolution was possible but a discussion could be accommodated “under some rule.” Anna Hazare’s side was adamant that the Lokpal bill must be passed before he could break the fast. He himself did not insist on having his version of the bill passed, but surprisingly wanted only a resolution enunciating his demands. Many insiders maintain what weighed with Hazare was the unanimous appeal by parliament to break the fast.
The fact is that the members of civil society had lost stamina. I heard in many drawing rooms that they had enough of Hazare and wanted to “hear something else.” That was expected from a soft state. Over the years, I have felt that the society was willing to strike but afraid to wound. The truth is that we do not allow things to reach a boiling point because we are not prepared to face the consequences.
True, we are not radicals. Nor do we favour changing the status quo. Yet this time the movement had stirrings of a revolution. It could have achieved something in the shape of parivartan (change). Whether the system delivered or not was not an issue for the fast. The issue was that people were expecting something that would change their life. It meant different things to different people. But the common factor was the change.
Still there is no running away from the fact that the Hazare movement against corruption has galvanised the middle class youth for the first time after Gandhian Jayaprakash Narayan’s call for a change in 1974. Yet both the movements did not allow the people’s anger to concretise and saw to it that they did not go beyond “control.”
Had the JP movement lasted longer, the nation would have steeled itself to fight against the undesirable elements, parading themselves as votaries of change but perpetuating the status quo. They were the beneficiaries and falsified JP’s dreams. In Hazare’s case, the disconcerting part was the fast. Otherwise, his movement would have ushered in a revolutionary era, the dawning of the second independence. I wish Hazare had separated the movement from the fast. But the people surrounding him wanted a dramatic step to attract attention and made the fast an integral part of the movement. The result has been mishmash neither fist nor foul. It promises a lot but doesn’t look like delivering much. Had the movement by itself reached the proportion which the fast did, the government would have feared people’s threatening mood.
True, Hazare is honest when he says that he will resume his fast if and when he finds his expectations had not been met. But I am not sure whether the popular response some months later would be of the same scale. I could see that Hazare had come to symbolise the aspirations of hundreds of thousands of people who came on the streets to support him throughout the country. Yet it is difficult to see whether the same number of protesters would respond if and when the government does not meet his demands.
That parliament is supreme does not need to be repeated because it is an apex body in the parliamentary democracy. People elect its members. Yet what should not be forgotten is that they continue to be supreme even when they demand circumventing of an institution like the Standing Committee of parliament discussing the Lokpal bill.
I was amused by actor Om Puri’s argument that a parliament member must be literate. India has been served well by the earlier Lok Sabhas which had at least one fourth of 545-members illiterate. Dr Rajendra Prasad, chairman of the Constituent Assembly, wanted to have a provision to lay down the minimum educational qualification for legislators. India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, opposed the proposal. His argument was that when they were engaged in freedom struggle, the illiterate and the backward were the ones who followed them while the literate were toadies, on the side of the British rulers. Should he deny the illiterate their right after winning freedom? The proposal was dropped.
Hazare’s movement has been supported as much by the illiterate as the literate. The effort should be to make everyone literate, not to punish the illiterate who have had no opportunity to go to school. The Lokayukta (state ombudsman) should see to it that everyone went to school.
What does not come in the ambit of Lokpal is poverty. Electoral reforms are essential so that the right type of people reach the Lok Sabha and the state legislatures. Yet more important are the measures to enable the have-nots to become the haves. Like corruption, poverty in India is indelible. There are no soft options.
The writer is a senior Indian journalist.
