As Anna Hazare ended his fast against graft, the media went into a frenzy over how social media and two segments of our society – the middle class and youth – had played a key role in the success of his agitation.
Comparisons were made with the contribution of social media sites to the successful revolution in parts of the Arab world. Some even dreamt of a revolution in India, similar to those in Libya and Egypt.
But that dream is unfortunately not based on reality.
Perhaps it is difficult to expect observations based on reality from the people who live continuously in the cyberworld. But those who don’t, cannot afford to make such a mistake about India, whose sheer size and population defies conventional equations applied to other nations.
While studying the relationship between social media and people’s movements, it is important to understand the difference between cyber reality and on-ground movements.
Social networking sites can spread the word about a meeting, or argue eloquently for a cause. But they cannot make people act on such information. That requires other factors like inspiring leadership, a burning issue, people’s will and powerful emotions about a cause or event.
Social networking sites cannot replace an inspiring leader. It is particularly difficult in a vast country like India, where Internet penetration is still nominal. Revolutions here still needs people who are willing to sacrifice even their lives, a set objective(s) and a guiding leadership.Social media cannot provide this.
Unlike in pre and post-independence India, when it was in the forefront of various and at times violent agitations, today’s middle class seems to be believe more in symbolic acts. Like lighting candles and sharing messages using their cell phone or computer.
But while symbolism is important, it plays a limited role.
The much tom-tommed role of the middle class and youngsters in Anna Hazare’s recent agitation raises certain important questions. Though the agitation was to press for a particular draft of the Lokpal Bill, its overall objective was to root out corruption in our society.
Now corruption takes place at two levels – one, at the level of decision makers, and two, at the level where the common man has to deal with the government machinery.
The authorities in some developed nations have managed to restrict the corruption to higher levels. In these nations, common people don’t have to bribe government officials to get their regular work processed. Naturally, the same middle class working in government offices does not pay bribes, and corruption is thus usually restricted to the upper enclaves of the society.
Unfortunately that is not the case with India, where corruption is spread from top to bottom. But more people are fed up with the corruption at the lower levels of bureaucracy and government, which involves bribes for getting routine work done, rather than the huge multi-crore scams, simply because it impacts them at a more fundamental level.
This adds an interesting twist to the issue, because the people taking and giving bribes belong to the same middle class.
A linesman or a junior engineer of the local electricity board takes a bribe for giving an power connection to a teacher or a doctor. The same linesman or engineer has to bribe a government hospital staff or a doctor to obtain some services or certificates. The doctor or hospital staff has to bribe people at the Regional Transport Authority to get a driving license. And the RTO staff bribes a civic employee for a water connection or sanctioning plan for his house.
Notice that the roles above are restricted to public sector or government staff.
There is thus this rather piquant situation where government employees on one hand accept bribes to provide services which are under their jurisdiction or domain, and on the other pay bribes to receive services which are under some other domain.
And they are all mostly, invariably, middle class. Not VVIPs or CEOs, but often our own relatives.
It could be your cousin, who’s a junior engineer with the electricity board, or that uncle who works at the license department of a municipal corporation, that aunt working in some dreary government office, that sister-in-law who teaches at a government school. It could be you.
With parents like these, today’s youngsters are obviously no strangers to corruption. How many of them are bold enough to protest against corrupt family members? How many of them are willing to at least open a discussion in the house over the source of suspect funds? How many reject fancy, expensive weddings in favor of simpler ones, despite knowing that the money for such extravagance cannot be raised legally?
Apart from financial corruption, there’s also moral corruption, which comes in the form of cleverly bypassing or circumventing rules, or using “influence” to get the job done.
Are we willing to accept the norms of civil society in our day to day life? Are we willing to admit that any action that is harmful to other person in any manner is a kind of corruption? Will the youngsters stop playing loud music after 10 pm, or stop participating in any function or activity that blocks traffic?
So what exactly were the middle class and youngsters protesting against when they turned out to support Hazare? Were they not protesting against their own corruption, and that of their relatives?
There is no harm in participating in an agitation to muster support for a cause, particularly a worthwhile one.
But what if the people who went to Jantar Mantar, gathered at public squares, lit candles, sent out sms’, and endorsed such causes on Facebook and Twitter had instead just decided not to accept any bribe for the work they do? What if they severed ties with all relatives and friends who indulge in corruption?
Now that would have been a real revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment