The hottest news in India at this time is the anti-corruption Jan Lokpal movement led by activists Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal etc. They are leading a movement to pressurize the Indian Government to pass the Jan Lokpal Bill, which will set up the post of Jan Lokpal to control corruption- definitely one of the biggest problems in the country. For this purpose, Anna Hazare went on two prolonged fasts in Delhi, both of which ended after the government agreed to consider their demands. The movement has won tremendous popular support from the Indian people, at least in urban areas. On the other hand, some critical voices are also being heard, though far far fewer in number.
Most of the criticisms against the movement hinge on three issues- 1) The activists are resorting to "unconstitutional" methods of protest like "fasting unto death" rather than participating democratic processes 2) It does not have a coherent political agenda 3) The very idea of Jan Lokpal is flawed as it involves giving unlimited power to one person -the Jan Lokpal (Anna's proposal demands that even the Prime Minister should be under it). It is not clear how such a person will be selected, and how it can be ensured that he himself is above corruption. Extreme Left-wing activist Arundhati Roy (whom I usually hate) also questioned the definition of "corruption"- is it just financial irregularity, or something more?
Personally, I agree that these are valid criticisms. But it is not difficult to understand why Anna and his followers avoid "constitutional methods"- it is because most people have lost faith in them long ago. Most people look upon politicians as the main enemies of the nation (I will come back to this point). Most probably the Anna also believes this to some extent. While the movement at the moment lacks a long-term political goal at the moment, maybe it can develop one if it keeps on going. On the other hand, the criticism regarding the idea of Jan Lokpal (point 3 as above) seems very genuine. Regarding the definition of corruption, I consider it as "using the power of one's money/post/uniform to win unfair/illegal advantage in terms of money, service or power without explicitly causing/threatening to cause death/injury to anyone". I don't buy the Left-wing's argument that the anti-corruption movement is just an eyewash to conceal other issues like agricultural suicides, land acquisition etc.Of course these are serious issues, but so is corruption, and one cannot downplay a movement just because it is not focussing on the issues of his own primary concern. Nevertheless, I am not particularly worried about these issues. What i am concerned about is something else.
There is no denying of the fact that Anna Hazare's movement has caused a massive mobilisation of the urban population. Rallies and gatherings in support of the movement have become regular in cities. The enthusiasm of the youngsters is particularly conspicuous. For quite a few decades, the Indian urban youth were accused of being glued to entertainment and turning a blind eye to the problems of the country. But this time, they have become very much aware of the movement, and are turning out in large numbers to support it. The primary reason appears to be that the movement is about corruption- something that touches everyone in India in some way or the other. Some cynics suggest that sporting "I am Anna" T-shirts, or sticking "I support Anna Hazare, what about you?" stickers on cars has become a new fashion in the fashion-driven urban world. While I do believe this to some extent, I also believe that there has indeed been a mobilisation of the urban youth, which is a good sign. But the question is, will this actually lead to something meaningful?
I understand that the timing of the movement is very significant, as it has come at a time when two of the biggest financial scams in India were doing rounds in the news- the CWG scam and the 2G spectrum scam. People are understandably outraged by the corruption of politicians- those people who are often looked upon as the main enemies of the country because of their corruption. But most people who are participating in Anna's movement seem to be overlooking the fact that politicans are a sampling of the society itself. Obviously, if the politicians of a society are grossly corrupt it will indicate that either the society itself is grossly corrupt, or the non-corrupt people do not go into politics. Neither inference is flatterring for the society, but I understand that it is the first possibility that is true. Most of Anna's supporters, or even Anna himself, seem to be assuming that there is a corrupt India of politicians and perhaps government employees, and a non-corrupt but stoic India, which they represent and are trying to mobilize. Such an assumption seems absurd. The corrupt people of today are the youngsters of yesterday. Most of Anna's most vocal supporters are the urban youngsters- but most of them have already cheated in exams, made "lateral entry" into queues, and will soon bribe cops after breaking signals and/or civic laws, will evade taxes and so on. Those who will take up government jobs will demand bribes from poor people for performing their basic duties, and those who will join politics will behave in the same way as the current generation of politicians seem to be behaving!
What is most important is that the we, young generation, who are supporting the movement, have to transform ourselves, so that we ourselves do not indulge in corruption as the previous generation has. If we do transform themselves, automatically the corruption will come down in future. Controlling one's own greed is more effective than criticizing others. And it is not difficult to do. It does not require any fasting, agitation, courting arrest etc. Yet I do not hear too many voices appealing to Anna's young supporters to transform themselves. Some people do talk about arousing ourselves to gather courage to protest against corruption we face in our daily lives. It is not easy to gather courage to protest against corruptions of people we encounter, but to me, it is of secondary importance. It is, of course, important to resist/punish those who are already corrupt, but why not do the basic thing first? A battle against the corrupt can be fought on the streets of "Dilli", but a battle against corruption can be fought and won in our own "Dil". Which is more effective?
Some of Anna's supporters accept that they are also liable to get corrupted, as greed is one of the "6 basic sins" of mankind, but that is precisely why they want stronger anti-corruption laws. But why don't existing laws work? It is because, corruption is a very widespread, all-pervasive and deeply established cancer in the society. Those who are entrusted with implementing the existing laws are themselves corrupt. Even if we do get a new law, we will need some institution to enforce it. How will it be ensured that this institution itself will not get corrupted? Corruption is very different from other law-and-order-related problems like say robbery or terrorism. This is because, very few people in the society are robbers or terrorists. They can be contained considerably if not completely by laws and adequately powerful police and military forces. But corruption is different - it is the enemy within ourselves!!
No comments:
Post a Comment