Two cheers for Anna

This has been the month of Anna Hazare. A cricket journalist asked Sunil Gavaskar if he supported Anna’s campaign, and Gavaskar shot back, “Of course, I do. Who doesn’t?” Team Anna must be congratulated for capturing the imagination of the nation on the issue of corruption in our public life, and highlighting the crisis of credibility in the governance system.

The debate on various facets of the Lokpal bill and on the events of the last few days rages around us even as we write these lines. In the process, the discourse about corruption has reduced itself to a debate about the various versions of the Lokpal bill, to the sanctity of parliamentary procedure, and to the outrage over the government’s attempts to curtail the democratic right of the people to protest and demonstrate. Structural aspects of corruption in the political economy of our time (tax breaks for the rich combined with guns for the poor, to quote a recent Supreme Court judgment) are almost totally absent from the debate as is the need to listen to multiple voices on this or other issues.

The media has highlighted the tsunami of support for Anna and for the right to protest. The tech-savvy, middle-class youth have taken to the streets as well as made creative use of texting, cause-support groups and Twitter. Yet, why is it that we are haunted by images of Adivasi protesters against displacement in Bastar, who have trekked three days each way, carrying meagre food supplies and small children in their arms, to rally in district headquarters and whose voices have gone largely unheard and unreported by the media? As a worker-friend commented, “Bhrastachar se ladte hain to phool barsate hain, atyachar se ladte hain to goli khate hain (We are showered with flowers when we fight against corruption, but face bullets when we fight against oppression)”.

There is no doubt that the people of India are genuinely angry about the phenomenon, scale and pervasiveness of corruption in the country, and about the inability of the body politic to do anything effective to curb this. The scale of the anger is unprecedented and needs to be appreciated by our political professionals. It seems that ordinary people, and particularly the young, are no longer willing to let the politicians determine the nature of public politics, but wish to assert their own voices in their own way. What this portends for the shape of political action in the future is a matter for serious thought and introspection.

The spontaneity and extent of public participation in these actions is being compared to public protests against inept and unacceptable governments in many north African countries earlier this year. It remains important to pinch oneself and remember that the choice is not really between the uncontested legitimacy of large numbers and the inviolable sanctity of parliaments elected once every five years. Much is being made of the nonviolent nature of the protests. This is no doubt laudable. However, we need to remember Irom Sharmila’s letter to Anna Hazare, in which she complains of being prevented from bringing to this platform the concerns of the people of Manipur, which she calls ‘the most corrupt place in the world’.

Corruption is no doubt a very serious issue and pollutes the entire culture of public polity. However, there are issues that are even more pervasive that affect the quality of life of large sections of Indian people. These are issues like hunger, homelessness, lack of appropriate livelihoods, lack of health care, caste, communal and gender violence, and the unwarranted deaths of young people. As one wonders about the architecture of protest when these issues do get articulated, one is forced to conclude with two cheers for Anna.