Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2011 > Anna and his Critics

Mainstream, VOL XLIX, No 40, September 24, 2011

Anna and his Critics

Wednesday 28 September 2011

#socialtags

by Bagwat Prasad

Anna and his team are great crusaders against corruption. Maoists want systemic change. Anna’s team aims at intensifying Indian democracy in tune with the spirit of the Constitution, reflected in the Preamble. The Hindu in its editorial (29.8.2011) writes: “In India, unlike in Britain, Parliament is not supreme. Constitution is.” Maoists want to overthrow the Constitution. The Jan Lokapal Bill of Team Anna serves the cause of democratic decentralisation and vigilance by suggesting many steps including the institution of Lokayukts in States. These are steps in consonance with the Constitution.

Anna’s critics like Arundhati Roy have great intellectual stature. They have often earnestly taken up the issues of the underprivileged. The critics of Anna are serving democracy by raising important issues. The final Bill will take shape after discussions in the Standing Committee. Anna’s team has shown sufficient flexibility in accommodating the views of differing parliamen-tarians. They have rightly stuck to the core issues.

Both Maoists and Gandhians are pro-people, but a world separates their attitudes. A Maoist says: “I am certain. So, you have to die because I hate you as the enemy of my cause.” A Gandhian says: “I am certain. So, I am ready to die with love for you in my heart.” Both Gandhi and Marx were fanatics and liberals by turn. Voltaire was the greatest European liberal, but he made a fanatical statement when he said: “My views are different from yours, but I am prepared to die to uphold your right to independence of opinion.”

Before Anna’s fast, people were feeling frustrated. They had given up hopes of changing the set-up. The Constitution has been subverted to serve the interests of parties and individuals. What we are witnessing today is a sort of constitutional fascism. Political parties are devoid of democratic structures. The High Command decides everything including the choosing of the State chiefs. The High Command may be constituted of an individual, a group or a family. Communalism and casteism, money-power and muscle-power play key roles in many constituencies. Feudal tendencies, like blind loyalty to an individual, a family or a party, guide the voters in elections. But, on occasions, even Indian rural voters have shown sufficient maturity and vigilance in some important decisive elections and have made powerful heads roll in the dust. We owe a heavy debt of gratitude to Jayaprakash Narayan who enthused the people to overthrow the Emergency despots.

Elections take place generally after an interval of five years. Have the voters no role during the interval? Parliament is being dominated by Crorepatis. Should the people watch with helplessness the rising tides of corruption, boosted by the Neta-police-raj leading to the militarisation of society?

Maoists have one answer; the Gandhians, another.

India, in the twentieth century, had the unique privilege of having produced a galaxy of great leaders, some of them Gandhians, and others, of a different hue. Though they lacked state power, JP and Lohia, Ambedkar and M.N. Roy were great leaders of the people of whom any nation can be proud.

A colossus like Gandhi may adorn the stage of history once in a millennium. We are fortunate to have mini-Gandhis like Anna amongst us. Anna is not an intellectual, but he has a big heart. He is ably assisted by a team of legal experts and non-sectarian democrats. Rural India’s imagination does not get fired by a gun- handling Che or Mao. The whole of India dotes on a scantily clad, fasting pilgrim of peace and non-violence preaching to people. Who can forget the Buddha, Mahavira and their disciples? They are the products of a unique culture.

European and Indian civilisations developed in two different routes. While the European civilisation stressed rationality, India’s stress on right reason was preceded by prior stress on right emotion. India’s pursuance of right emotion led its sages to the holy regions of non-violence and Aparigraha (minimising one’s wants). While Europe’s philosophers revelled in just wars, Indian philosophers emphasised the unity of the whole living world (Gita 18-20) and condemned every sort of violence. Unlike the Greeks and Palestinians, India’s leading thinkers generally abhorred the eating of meat. Charvak lost his life as he condemned the meat-loving Vedic-Aryan priests. India’s dominating sects of the first millennium (the Buddists, Jains and Ajivakas) accepted non-violence, truth, and Aparigraha as the greatest values in life.

Another trend that goes against India’s great traditions is the own-group-love craze. Only members belonging to that particular community are qualified to speak on behalf of that community. A non-Dalit, a non-Adivasi or a non-proletarian conscientious fighter for their causes is generally a suspect. Ancient India gave the highest honour to Rajarshees (Tribe-Chief-Mahayogis) like Rishavnath, Janaka, the Buddha and the Tirthankaras. Mahavir and the Buddha belonged to the leading families of their own communities who voluntarily relinquished their privileges and accepted poverty. Today’s leaders, even those belonging to the poorer communities, greedily welcome riches, power and honour as if to compensate for their past destitution. The middle class in India is no doubt overwhelmingly steeped in corruption. But there are occasions when they stake their wealth and liberty for the right cause. A Prashant Bhushan, a Kiran Bedi or a Kejriwal are risking much when they defy the powers that be through plain-speaking. The middle class is definitely consumerist but their support for Anna need not be belittled or ridiculed.

There are many good and committed people working in many fields. Irom Sharmila’s sacrifice is undoubtedly of the greatest nobility and courage. The sufferings of farmers, the harassment of Dalits and women, the exploitation of Adivasis are all a shame. Every issue is of tremendous importance. Corruption feeds all issues in India and raises the suffering of different sections of harassed people to unbearable heights. Corruption affects every Indian, be he rich or poor. Anna, with all his faults, has become a symbol of hope for the frustrated commoners. He has touched a chord, unexplored since the days of Jayaprakash. In her essay (The Hindu 21.8.2011), Arundhati Roy points out the errors made by Anna on different occasions. She is right. Mercifully, Anna’s team is free from these community-centred errors. Anna may learn as Gandhiji learnt in his later days that it was wrong of him to support the Varna Ashrama system earlier.

Prabhat Patnaik, in an essay in The Hindu, points to the danger involved in Messiah-worship. Tagore accused Gandhi of the same fault and warned him of moral fascism (Gandhi- devotion cult) that may develop in India. Gandhi assured Tagore that he was aware of the danger and was taking steps to educate his followers properly so that such an abuse of personality cult would not plague his countrymen. Ancient India of the first millennium BC was free from any sort of Messiahism. The Buddha exhorted his followers to have a critical attitude even towards his own words. He refused to name a successor when Anand approached him.

Prof Thorat, in an essay in The Hindu, compares Ambedkar’s methods of struggle with those of Anna. He praises Ambedkar for his espousal of the constitutional path. Anna has taken up an issue that needs instant attention and the delay involved in following the constitutional path may prove fatal to the people’s cause of abolishing corruption.

Unlike in many other civilisations and cultures, critics of popular heroes, conscientious individual dissenters, ready to face humiliation by defying popular conceptions, attitudes and customs, are held as ideal men and women in ancient India.

Mahabharata is clear about this.

A wise man should always welcome dishonour and insult like nectar. He should treat honour and praise as poison. (Santi Parva, Canto-229 Sloka-21)

The Buddha in Dharmapada warns his followers to shed the ambition of becoming respectable and popular. (Dhammapada, Canto 5…. Sloka-74).

Anna’s critics have not hesitated to write unpopular essays. Democracy blooms in such circumstances.

Both Anna’s team and his critics are worthy citizens of India.

Neither Maoism nor the present type of parliamentarism can solve the problems of modem India. Maoists, as Bal Gopal said, have made Adivasis conscious of their exploitation and have led successful struggles for their rights. Parliament in combination with the judiciary has succeeded in preserving the democratic structure to a certain extent. Gandhi mentioned the defects of the parliamentary system in his book, Hind Swaraj. What we need is a third force: the civil society in satyagraha-based creative tension with the authorities. Social, political, cultural and economic justice within a democratic structure should be pursued by the leaders of the civil society. We need the support of the middle class for strengthening the civil society. The middle class is more sinned against than being a sinner. A faulty global culture and unhealthy institutions and ideas are choking its justice-based democratic spirit

Our Crorepati authorities are bent upon destroying the civil society by hook or crook. They welcome a brutalised militarised society where the civil society is non-existent. Maoist violence, concentrated in certain belts, does not shake their throne. Even a long stalemate does not affect them much. It helps them to divert the attention of the public. The way Anna’s team-mates are harassed speaks much about an insidious strategy of ‘Truth Hunt’ using imperialist techniques to harass their opponents. Individuals in high position and hallowed institutions that sustain democracy, claiming immunity from criticism are likely to become corrupt and Fascistic. Anna with his team has struck a strong blow for democracy. They deserve the support of all citizens.

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.