[Wrote in Dec.2011-Jan.2012]
The movement for creation of institution of Lokpal,
spearheahed by an infant organization named India Against Corruption or
popularly known as Team Anna, has provoked most of the sections in the
Indian society to react and position themselves vis-à-vis this movement. This
is the third wave of mass discontent against ‘establishment’ in
independent India. The first instance was Jayprakash Narain’s popular movement
against the Congress Party’s government at the centre and its various state
governments in the decade of 1970s. The second momentum was V.P. Singh’s
courageous decision to take on Rajiv Gandhi’s government; in which he served as
Foreign Minister, Finance Minister and Defence Minister at one point of time or
the other, on the issue of kickbacks in purchasing of Bofors guns for Indian
Army. All the three waves of mass discontent at the national level emerged
focusing on issues of corruption at the high offices, while rising inflation
added fuel to the people’s anger.
First Wave of Mass Discontent
The J.P. movement that began against corruption at high
places turned into movement for restoration of democracy in India once the then
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi clamped national emergency in 1975 citing internal
disturbances as the main cause. This movement was a combination of: right-wing
Congress factions who unsuccessfully challenged Indira Gandhi’s leadership and
were eventually thrown out of the Congress Party; the land lords and upper
strata of social forces that earlier formed the Swantra Party
championing free economy; the Jan Sangh backed by the Rashtriya
Swaymsevak Sangh (RSS) that has been seeking alteration of Indian polity on
ultra-nationalist ideology; the socialist followers of Ram Manohar Lohia; and
not the least – the party-less Jayprakash Narain riding high on the shoulders
of thousands of idealist youth who wanted to make India an egalitarian and
inclusive society. A significant section of the Left, particularly Communist
Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], overtly took anti-Congress position after
commencement of emergency arguing subversion of human and democratic rights by
the authoritarian regime. Muslims in India, for the first time since
independence, and so as sizable sections of Dalit in north and east
India disserted ranks of Congress Party. Reason for Muslims was said to be the
forceful implementation of sterilization programme during the emergency; and
for Dalit it was chance for the popular leader Babu Jagjivan Ram to
become the Prime Minister, the social revolution in itself. This movement was
also powered by the beneficiaries of green revolution, the rich and middle
level farmers most of whom belonged to the intermediate castes in Hindu social
hierarchy. It had galvanized India’s east, west and north alike – politically
and socially. However, the north-eastern part and northern most state of Jammu
and Kashmir had little impact of the national churning. Similarly, the Southern
States remained engulfed in their respective dynamics, although it could not
remain aloof from the long term repercussions of the electoral defeat of the
grand old Congress Party, the first ever since the establishment of the
Republic. Although the first wave of mass discontent emerged out of
sentiments against the corruption, it has contributed nothing in terms of
curbing corruption at high places. On the other hand, its socio-political
effects were different and far reaching.
The most important result of 1970s
movement has been deepening and widening of consciousness against subversion of
democratic institutions in general and of Parliament and elections in
particular. The opinion generated against authoritarianism, as vindicated in
the 1977 general elections, has been so strong that it had put to rest any
speculation of India either going the one-party rule, particularly seen in
countries of the then communist block, or the military dictatorship being
witnessed in some of the South and South-East Asian countries. A related, and
equally important development, was collapse of the myth of invincibility of the
Congress Party. The TINA factor, There Is No Alternative, forever
disappeared from Indian polity. The second important result was emergence of
RSS-backed political force at the power centre. Although, Jan Sangh was
merged into Janata Party, its leaders and cadres did not severe ties
with RSS and continued to practice their core ideology. The partial taste of
power in the form of Janata Party government at the centre enthused
confidence among RSS ideologues of possibility of emerging as a key national
player in some form or the other and ways of implementing their agenda. Thirdly, the Left, in the form of CPI(M),
emerged as a viable force and succeeded in constructing political bastion in
one of the most populous states of India – West Bengal. The massive popularity
of the Left Front in West Bengal for many years since 1977 had unquestionably
its roots in taking up fight against authoritarianism at the Centre and
semi-fascistic rule of Congress in the state. Fourth, politically and socially
marginalized sections began to assess importance of their vote and also their
bargaining power. Realization that weakest of the weak can defeat the strongest
political entity, empowered the masses to have larger social implications. It
has paved the way for formation of identity based politics, particularly in the
vast Hindi heartland. Fifth, and quite different, implication was dissociation
of many of the youth, of those inspired by J.P.’s ideology of Total
Revolution, from electoral politics. Many of them, in turn, have chosen to
work among different communities in poor, rural or remote areas; mostly on the
issues of their livelihood and sustainable development that includes education,
environment and health. Some others followed their suit in following years,
thus, creating an un-ignorable network of voluntary organizations and activists
commanding respects among their people.
Second Wave of Mass Discontent
Implications of the second wave of mass discontent
in late 1980s have been consolidification of many of the repercussions of the first
wave on the one hand; and emergence of complex social, economic and
political factors to change the landscape of Indian polity on the other hand.
First of all, Congress Party was further weakened. Since then, Congress has
been unable to muster simple majority in Lok Sabha elections on its own; and
also forced to enter into political coalitions at the centre. Secondly, Jan
Sangh’s successor, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), emerged as one of
the two largest political parties in India. This emergence has been marked by
intense communal divide in society and further political marginalization of
Muslims in national politics. Third, as a paradox to rise of Hindu right-wing,
social identity based politics has become an important feature of Indian
polity. At a policy level, political consensus emerged on providing
reservations in jobs and education to historically deprived and marginalized
castes and social groups in Hindu society. Fourth, the Left Parties gained
importance at the national level as king-maker as 3 of the total 7 Union
Governments since 1989 could have been formed with the Left’s outside support.
Like the first wave, the right wing BJP, the socialist followers of
Lohia and the J.P., the Dalit and Other Backward Castes (OBCs), Muslims
and the Left fought against the Congress, although not in unison. During the second
wave too, as happened in 1970s, India’s east, west and north further turned
away from the Congress. The Southern States, like in 1970s, vacillated but in
the longer term non-Congress forces got strengthened including the BJP. The
north-east remained largely unaffected; but the state of Jammu and Kashmir,
particularly the Kashmir valley, erupted with discontent and anger against the Indian
establishment during and in the aftermath of this period; even though there is
no overt inter-connectivity between the discontent in the valley and discontent
in rest of India.
It is remarkable that most of the social forces and
political formations that participated in both the anti-corruption crusades;
like the right wing Jan Sangh (and then BJP), the Dalit and OBCs
and the Left, consolidated their power bases. In the process, the Swatantra
Party elements mostly merged into the BJP and the Lohiaites have been
balkanized into social identity groups. On the other hand, Muslims did not gain
anything substantially on and after both the occasions and the tribal remained
politically voiceless.
It has been argued that the positioning of Lohiaites,
Left and Dalit and OBC groups were identical with that of BJP’s during
both the waves of mass discontent,
resulting into the latter’s gaining of legitimacy in Indian politics.
However, right-wing politics, in the form of the BJP, would have gained
immensely by capturing the mass discontent against the Congress regimes,
particularly on the issues of corruption and inflation, if the other
non-Congress forces would not have positioned themselves as they did. For the
wide ranging political forces; from ultra right to ultra left to various social
groups, discontent against corruption served as a secular issue to fight
against the establishment in order to garner support and legitimacy. On
the other hand, futility of both the waves to produce concrete mechanism or alter
the political-economic system to effectively curb menace of corruption resulted
into co-option of opponents of the Congress regime into the establishment
or the system. Till 1989 Congress Party was considered as the natural
agency to govern and hence, had been identified as establishment. The
socio-political developments since second wave of mass discontent shows
that the space of Congress as part of establishment has been constantly
eroded while the BJP, Left and Dalit and OBC groups/parties have been encroaching
into the establishment.
A significant development since the second wave of
mass discontent has been pronouncement of economic liberalization in India.
A major plank to sell the idea of economic liberalization policy has been the
argument that an economic system dominated by the State is bound to be
corrupt and inefficient, hence needs to be altered. Government of the
politically weak Congress Party during 1991-1996, which was also in the
minority in the Lok Sabha,
succeeded in firmly introducing neo-liberalization mainly because
people, at large, were unwilling to keep on embracing the system against which
it had rose twice in the past. In the process, people’s discontent got
fragmented into protection and promotion of social and communal identities. As
a direct result of it, the secular world-view of progressive movements too got
fractured and it had to take up fight against single issues at different places
calling itself the people’s movements. Even after the electoral mandate
of 2004 and the historic role that the Left parties played at the centre for
next 4 years, masses did not rise in action against the
neo-liberalization. It is in this context that the third wave of mass
discontent erupted in India in 2011.
Third Wave of Mass Discontent
Like the earlier two occasions, third wave of mass
discontent has the background of massive government scams and inaction
against corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. There are few more commonalities;
ever-rising inflation, presence of Congress Government at the centre and
Gandhi-Nehru dynasty at the receiving end of the mass discontent. Another
striking similarity of all the three momentums has been the backdrop of
impressive electoral performances by the Congress Party in the general
elections that perpetuated the fear of never ending Gandhi-Nehru dynastic rule
over India. Similarities, nonetheless, end here, while the differentiations are
strikingly noteworthy.
The first differentiation between earlier two movements
and the incumbent movement is the latter’s success in clear articulation of its
goal and objectives. The movement focused on creation of an institution of Lokpal
through a parliamentary legislation. In fact, no political party or group
denied necessity of institution of Lokpal. The differences remained on
its structure, role, scope and powers.
The second major differentiation is in the nature of the
leadership. In 1970s and in late 1980s, political parties and political
leadership were the main agencies and actors mobilizing and leading the masses
against the respective incumbent central governments. However, the third wave of mass discontent
has been led by non-political entities named Anna Hazare – a social activist
who has developed a backward village in Maharashtra on the Gandhian principles;
Kiran Bedi – a retired senior officer of Indian Police Services; Arvind
Kejariwal – Right to Information activist who had resigned from Indian Revenue
Services; Prashant Bhushan – a successful lawyer at the Supreme Court known for
his passion for human rights; and Medha Patkar – founder of Narmada Bachao
Andolan. None of them had ever contested elections nor been members of any
political parties. This movement has not thrown, so far, any significant
political figure(s) in sharp contrast to earlier two occasions.
The third differentiation is that the third wave of
mass discontent is not merely directed against the incumbent government but
also against the established ‘political class.’ People in the movement revered
the non-political activists and hated all the politicians alike. The movement
and its leadership have been severely criticized for the same; however, without
serious introspection by the ‘political class’ and its defenders such criticism
is proving to be self-defeating.
All the political parties agreed to the main demand of
the movement, i.e. creation of institution of Lok Pal; however, all of
them, except the BJP, articulated their positions against content and intent of
the movement. Congress Party’s main criticism has been that the movement
subverts the parliamentary procedures and prerogatives of the government
bestowed upon it by the voters for 5 years. Many regional parties, like
Trinamool Congress, DMK as well as AIADMK and NCP, shared this view. The Left
said the movement has been crowded by the middle and upper middle class people
who have not been uncomfortable with neoliberal policies. On the top of it, the
Left alleged, the movement has been funded by the corporate sector. The social
identity based political parties and caste based social groups countered the
movement arguing that it has been led and dominated by the upper castes and
real agenda of this movement has been subversion of the reservation system by
undermining the Constitution. Muslim groups and tribal mostly remained aloof
from the movement. BJP did not voice its criticism but remained ambivalent
about whole-heartedly participating in it. On the other hand, BJP’s key ally
Shiv Sena vehemently opposed Anna Hazare’s leadership and criticized the
movement. BJP’s ambivalence emerged from two interlinked factors; one, some of
its own leaders have been engulfed in the corruption cases and two, the mass
mobilizations during the movement have been so apathetic towards the political
parties that any overtures from the BJP might have boom-ranged on it. On the
other hand, BJP refrained from criticizing the movement because the middle
class, which BJP considers as its core constituency, has been sympathetic to
the government. Even though BJP kept a safe distance from the movement, RSS has
issued directives to its followers to participate in it.
In this overall context, a natural question that arises
is who participated in the countrywide massive mobilizations under the banner
of India against Corruption if all of the political parties, most of the
social/caste based organizations, Muslim groups and tribal maintained a
distance from it. One obvious answer is the RSS and the middle class. But some
of the prominent figures in this movement, e.g. Prashant Bhushan and Medha
Patkar, have been at the loggerheads with RSS as well as BJP on various issues
since last many years. Majority of the people who participated were neither
mobilized through RSS shakhas nor had any impression that they were
participating in a movement organized or led by RSS. Similarly, middle and
upper middle class have been more inclined towards liberalism and composite
culture and dislikes many of RSS’ extreme ideals and views. Also, scale of the massive support emerged
for Team Anna’s agitation in the month of August 2011, has gone beyond
the size of the middle class in India. Nonetheless, fact remains that RSS
participated in this movement so as the middle class. This convergence is
intriguingly interesting. The movement emerged from third wave of mass
discontent has a distinctive feature of ‘core’ of the movement and ‘periphery’
of the movement. While ‘core’ anchored the movement, ‘periphery’ participated
in it providing real strength to the movement. In a paradoxical situation,
Indian society’s those sections who have been benefitted most by the
neo-liberal policies and part of those sections, which have neither been
benefitted from the neo-liberal policies nor from the State’s welfare measures,
are part of this movement.
‘Core’ of the
Movement
Neo-liberalism has produced three distinguished sections
in Indian society that have now begun to exert their influence on polity. The
privatization, entry of MNCs and boom in Information-Technology driven by the
private sector has created a neo-rich middle and upper middle class.
Supplementary to it, a new entrepreneur class has come into existence in urban
India. Together, they all represent first section of the neo-liberal troika.
The second section has come into existence in the form of Non Governmental
Organizations (NGOs). State’s partial withdrawal from the public sphere has
simultaneously seen promotion of NGOs. Many of these NGOs compete with the State’s
space in the society even while receiving funds from the government or its
agencies. Many other NGOs receive funds from foreign agencies and want to
perform the State’s duties. Today these NGOs have significantly created
networking among people and their role in opinion shaping can not be ignored.
The third section that has gained strength during neo-liberal era is
electronic, print and digital media. This section is dependent on neo-rich
urban class for profit, however, it exerts influences on wider sections of
Indian society. All these three sections, which are products of neo-liberalism,
look at the ‘political class’ as the main source of corruption that has been
looting country’s resources. According to them, politicians’ greed for power
and money compels the other sectors, like corporate, media and private
entrepreneurs for corrupt practices. Therefore, curbing the corruption at the
political offices assumes highest priority for these three sections.
The fourth section, some of the people’s movements,
voluntary organizations and social activists, are not a product of
neo-liberalism but participated in the present movement. Many of them have been
involved in the J.P. movement of 1970s or have been inspired by that legacy and
since then independently working on different issues in different forms and at
different places. They emphasize on upholding Gandhian principles of
morality in public sphere. They also believe in decentralization of financial
and administrative powers. According to them, centralization of powers lead to
corruption and the existing ‘political class’ perpetuates centralization and indulges
in corruption. They believe that ‘Ganga’ of corruption flows from top to down.
Hence, eliminating corruption at the top is the first essential step to curb
the overall menace of corruption. Like
the first three sections, they also hold the existing ‘political class’ mainly
responsible for widespread corruption in the country. These four sections constitute the ‘core’ of
the incumbent movement arising out of third wave of mass discontent.
The first three sections, as described above, are
pro-globalization, practices wealthy life style and mostly comprise of urban
based population. People and organizations in the fourth section vary in their
approaches to the globalization and at best could be summarized as cautious and
wary of economic globalization. They believe in austerity and preach simple
living as envisaged under Gandhian world-view; and many of them work among
rural communities. Despite these basic differences, the fourth section can form
an alliance with the first three sections mainly because goal of the present
movement is well defined, i.e. creation of an institution of Lok Pal as
envisaged in the Jan Lok Pal Bill prepared by Team Anna. These
sections conceive Lok Pal as faithful representative of the civil
society, who will investigate and prosecute the corrupt politicians and
bureaucrats.
This is not to suggest that all the people’s movements
and voluntary organizations participated in the present movement. Significant
number of them has kept away from the agitation. Similarly not all NGOs
participated or sympathize with the movement. Reasons of their
non-participation vary from simple ego issues to disagreements on nature of
agitation to disliking for socio-economic character of other participants. Many
voluntary organizations are working according to the principles of advocacy
rather than confrontation with the State and hence preferred to stay
away from the agitation. Many people’s movements and social activists objected
to the elite character of the participants and could not associate themselves
with the movement.
Even though, ‘core’ of the
movement is resourceful and influential; nonetheless, it does not have the
numerical capacity to threaten the government and the established political
class. Countrywide massive mobilizations seen during Anna Hazare’s three
fasts in Delhi in different months in 2011 does not merely represents ‘core’
sections but a larger participation beyond it. This larger participation
constitutes ‘periphery’ of the movement.
‘Periphery’ of the Movement
‘Periphery’ of the movement is much more complex and
difficult to categorize. The first section in the ‘periphery’ is comprised of
small traders, shopkeepers, small distributors and urban/semi-urban people
involved in cottage industries. Most of them face regular harassments at the
hands of police and municipal authorities. They could relate with the concept
of Lok Pal as an institution that will keep checks on police and
bureaucracy. Second section in the ‘periphery’ includes smaller organizations
and unions in the urban and semi-urban areas like the transport unions or union
of Dabbewallas in Mumbai or union of the working people at the Dhobi
Ghat of Mumbai. This section is mostly disenchanted with the political
class and would like to see an institution that would make the political
class accountable and responsible towards its duties. The third and a major
component of the ‘periphery’ has been the urban youth; unemployed,
semi-employed or involved in petty businesses.
Similarly, large number of college and university students, whose future
will certainly be like their youth counterparts, joined the ranks in the
movement. This section is well connected through cell phones and internet; and
they are under the influence of BPO culture of the metropolitan cities. Along
with general frustration with the political class, they look forward to
contribute positively towards betterment of the society and the country. The
fourth section of the ‘periphery’ is diverse ‘spiritual’ organizations as well
as smaller political parties and political organizations. Their purpose of
participation in this movement is either to get connected to the people who are
out on the streets, or to isolate the Congress-led Central government, or to
serve both the purposes. Organizations connected to spiritual guru Shri
Ravishankar or Ramdev, many small organizations in different cities and towns
that subscribe to non-Congress (or anti-Congress) ideology but are not linked
to any major political party as well as the RSS and the CPI (Marxist-Leninist)
belong to this category. Overall, these four categories form the ‘periphery’
providing numerical strength to the present movement.
People who participated in the movement from ‘periphery’
could not be classified as beneficiaries of neo-liberal policies; neither do
they belong to middle or upper strata of the society nor all of them have
origins in the socially higher castes in Hindu society. On the other hand, most
of them are equally frustrated with the political class and are fed up
with non-existence of electoral alternatives. Most importantly, they have
increasingly been isolated from the State’s welfare and social
emancipation measures, either due to State’s withdrawal or inefficiency of
those policies itself. Again, ‘periphery’ does not represent all the people in
the country but sections of it. Particularly those poor and marginalized people
having organic links with political parties and been benefitted from their
programmes stayed away from the movement.
Conclusion
The third wave of mass discontent
is general expression of disenchantment with the established political class.
The ‘core’ of the movement is aware of its limitations in terms of numerical
strength and lack of cohesive ideology. Therefore, it has defined the goal of
the movement in clear terms, i.e. creation of Lok Pal; and objectives as
cleaning up the political system from corruption that includes money and muscle
powers. The ‘core’ does not have organizational mechanism, so far, to mobilize
the ‘periphery’. On the other hand, ‘periphery’s’ participation has been
enthusiastic and self-motivated. The ‘core’ is not antithetical to neo-liberal
policies and in many ways favors withdrawal of the State. The
‘periphery’ is not mobilized against the neo-liberal policies neither does it view
the State as useful entity. The ‘core’ and the ‘periphery’ together represent
a wider section of Indian people, who are not influenced or impressed by any of
the political formations. On the other hand, political parties lack the
programmes that could mobilize these people. Many of the political parties and
social formations, once seen as fighting against the establishment
during the first and second wave of mass discontents, have now been seen
as part of the establishment.
People’s
participation in the movement for Lok Pal indicates the political
vaccume existing in India. At the time of independence, seven major ideological
formations were competing with each other to build the future of India. First,
the Congress Party as the umbrella organization and with mixed economy favoring
Indian capitalists was the leading force. Second, the socialists emphasized
morality in public sphere and State-ownership of major industries. Third,
the Hindu right-wing organizations, mainly the RSS and Jan Sangh,
envisaged a majoritarian Hindutva-based polity. Fourth, a small group of
ideologues led by C Rajgopalachari and supported by some of the capitalists,
land-lords and princely lobby aspired for free economy. Fifth, the communists
were fighting for alteration of economic and political system on the lines of
egalitarian Marxist principles of equal distribution and public ownership of
all the means of productions. Sixth, organizations fighting for social
emancipation and social equality; inspired by the thoughts and leadership of
Dr. Ambedkar, Periyar and others. And seventh, Gandhian principles of village
self-reliance and austerity. All of these seven ideological formations have
undergone changes and built their bases or experienced erosion in their
support; some have even become extinct from political sphere, as a result of first
and second wave of mass discontents during 1970s and late 1980s.
The
third wave of mass discontent now indicates that political formations
based on these ideologies have been exhausted in terms of reaching out to
significant sections of the people. Today, India is divided between those
having faith in any of these political formations and those who are willing to
reject all of them and still not having any other viable alternatives. As a
result, even the present movement limits itself to the creation of Lok Pal
and cleaning of political system from the corrupt elements rather than trying
to form coherent ideological alternative to the existing political
formations.
