The revolution was called Jasmine after the Tunisian national flower. Ours was a young flower too, but one should not go to the extent of naming our revolution after our national flower lest it makes the movement unnecessarily political. There are similarities that one cannot overlook and shadows that keep us apart - individual.
A revolution is for the young, for the old – it is a movement. The enemy had been similar too – unemployment, poverty and here, only additionally corruption (at least prima facie). They stood against anarchy and we stood against our own. In a country where democracy is quoted as farce time and again perhaps, one could see it coming. The recent events had only triggered the final blow. The movement had shaken up the government's indifference on the issue of corruption and mobilized the urban youth across the country to come out on the streets in support of the demand voiced by Anna Hazare and his supporters for setting up an institutional mechanism to deal with corruption at all levels. The way we in various urban centers and netizens have woken up from their slumber on this issue and have risen to the colors of the Anna Hazare movement should be a matter of satisfaction to all the right-thinking people in the country.
The force of desperation has reached a new high and finding no vent, been let up at politics holding them guilty for all woes of life. Such is populist opinion against the electoral form of administration that every voice against the movement is ridiculed and termed pro-government. It is perhaps for this very state of affairs that Bhagat Singh wrote –
‘You go and oppose the prevailing faith, you go and criticize a hero, a great man, who is generally believed to be above criticism because he is thought to be infallible, the strength of your argument shall force the multitude to decry you as vainglorious. This is due to the mental stagnation, that criticism and independent thinking are the two indispensable qualities of a revolutionary. Because … is great, therefore none should criticize him. Because he has risen above, therefore everything he says-may be in the field of politics or religion, economics or ethics-is right. Whether you are convinced or not you must say, "Yes, that's true". This mentality does not lead towards progress. It is rather too obviously, reactionary.’
There have been many who have been fighting the issue of corruption for many years – each in his/her own manner. There are numerous NGOs working on the front of corruption with tools like RTI and have earned their credibility. And amongst such man, the contribution of Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, Swami Agnivesh cannot be forgotten at all specially in the light of recent events having lucratively catapulted youth to the national portal. The question is on accepting the monopolistic wisdom on the issue and the projection of idea that we can do nothing better than to accept his demands without subjecting them to scrutiny.
The government was not offered with much choice in face of a hunger strike and an extremely popular opinion. The latter, however, seems to have worked magic in this case since the government is used to facing hunger strike threats now and then or Irom Charu Sharmila would have won her case within 4 days too like her fellow, although elder, Gandhian. The iron lady of Manipur has been on fast since November 4, 2000 demanding the Government of India to withdraw the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, also otherwise known as AFSPA, from Manipur and other areas of India's north east. She has been charged with “attempt to commit suicide” which is unlawful under IPC and forcibly fed by police through nasogastric intubation in order to keep her alive while under arrest. Shirin Ebadi when in Delhi told the journalists:
"If Sharmila dies, Parliament is directly responsible. If she dies, courts and judiciary are responsible, the military is responsible… If she dies, the executive, the PM and President are responsible for doing nothing… If she dies, each one of you journalists is responsible because you did not do your duty…"
For the movement against corruption, the media/journalists were certainly doing their duty. Perhaps, north-east fails to strike emotive chords with our consciences or perhaps, superficially though they may be Indian, but deep down we all deem them as aliens using that racial word for them that differentiates us.
(Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee also went on a ‘fast unto death’ when his party had been allegedly denied a chance to form a government. The politicians definitely have some clout apparently, for the Rashtrapati Bhawan interfered in the matter within 1 day.)
To a generation of youth whose parents have been unsuccessfully trying to explain this unwarranted characteristic of a democracy, perhaps this seemed the only visible answer. They followed the Gandhian fasting, tweeting, sharing and calling each other. This is the same generation who was born in lap of democracy never to know what it is to be without a representation (emergency or pre-independence), this is also the army of youth that is proudly marching all over the world conquering the challenges thrown at it and yet, forgetting what Winston Churchill once said about ‘democracy being the worst form of government, except that all others have been tried.’ It is also, alas, the generation that skips the dutiful steps of democracy and expects to reap the rewards of it.
This movement surpasses the (electoral) choice its people have already made with a preferential choice and one is bound to ask a question – what makes you believe that one group can be chosen over others? Some might argue that when the Prime Minister of the country confesses on national television that he can also be helpless because of coalition dharma, then the only way to have your way is by dharnas and protests. But an imperfect system has to be tried and improved first rather than replaced by populist opinions. This also calls for analysis of two cynical arguments regarding the failure of Indian democracy and hence the need for a popular uprising:
1. Democracy has failed as and it does not suit to Indian conditions.
This argument flatly supports a military rule that will take us to the elusive utopian society. It pre-requisites supreme self-belief in one’s beliefs, ideas and ethics. A certain ruler (of this kind) will also have little respect, if any, for any kind of opposition and thus remove any possibility of evolution of ideas, ethics etc.
The vast majority of people are not able to think for themselves and hence the idea of democracy gets them rather more confused. The only thing that the non-elite require in this system is food and not abstract ideas of democracy and freedom. However, as it turns out it is the poor that go out to exercise their power once in 5 years because not only food is important, a platform to express the distress is equally wanted too.
2. Democracy will inevitably be corrupt in a country like India that is plagued by poverty, illiteracy.
The postulate is that in a country like India, it is pointless trying to fight things that already are or have become a part of the basic fabric of society. Caste divisions have become voting blocks. Corruption begins during the election process itself.
Caste, gender, and the contentious question of reservations is a case in point. Democracy should, in at least 50 years have helped us get rid of the primary support caste groupings seem to provide. If the inequalities in our society had been squarely tackled, we would not have found Dalit groups having to look for political support only amongst their own caste formations. The questions raised by Dr. Ambedkar before independence should have forced us to address and remove the exploitation inherent in our society in a more uncompromising manner. And when we have failed, we despair at how all identities in our society have become caste based. We turn cynical once again, look for ways to play one card against the other, and decide that politics will always be a dirty game.
In a democracy, if our representatives are failing us then we need to find methods of directly participating in decision making and implementation process. It is the abdication of our responsibilities towards the governance that has alienated us from the process of legislation and policy making. Such campaigns will require all of us as citizens to build the links between democracy and ethics so that we have a democratic structure where there is a more meaningful sense of the rule of law; equality of all citizens; a faith in justice; and a social sanction for a polity which tries to ensure greater equity and social justice.
In any case above or otherwise, the democratic system cannot be kept aside as a mute spectator charged guilty of its previous undoing’s, as Aruna Roy said:
"By-passing democratic processes for political expediency, however desirable the outcome, may be detrimental to democracy itself".
(With inputs from The Hindu, The Times of India, Indian Express, Rediff.com, Wikipedia)
No comments:
Post a Comment