Why the fast weapon works

The midnight police action against Baba Ramdev and his followers at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan may cost the ruling Congress Party dearly. And surely they are not unaware of this.

Having said that, we must also concede the fact that the Congress showed guts by taking the risk to finally show the world who really calls the shots.

When Anna Hazare, and then Baba Ramdev, entered the political theatre without wearing any party badge and started coercing the administration with their diktats, the government initially gave in for some time.

It even accepted Hazare’s demand of participation in the Bill drafting process, though in fact that is the job of the government and Parliament. It also held several ministerial level dialogues with Baba Ramdev. But it was all in vain, with the yoga guru remaining adamant about his scheduled fast. This finally forced the government to act against him.

Thanks mainly to the immature media, which thrives on drama and entertainment, Hazare and Ramdev became instant national heroes.

But though it played a crucial role, one cannot blame just the media. One must understand that the media has a limited role and impact. The issues have to be sufficiently hot and appealing to the public for sustained media coverage.

Image: Javed Choudhary

The method of agitation also plays a critical role. A public meeting or a morcha has limited exposure as it gets over in a few hours, as against a dharna or a fast which can go on for days, ensuring prolonged media coverage.

A fast is even much more effective, since it creates an image of someone willing to sacrifice everything, even life, for a social cause. And since no government can risk being seen as apathetic towards someone willing to risk his life for a cause, the chances of success are high.

Hence an indefinite fast has become the preferred weapon of such activists because it generates prolonged media publicity on one hand and puts pressure on the government to accede to their demands on the other.

In order to extricate itself from such situations, sometimes the government gives in to the demands, without really considering whether the cause is really just for everybody concerned.

Take the case of Medha Patkar’s recent fast in Mumbai for Golibar slum colony people. The Maharashtra government accepted all her demands, only to face another group of people from the same colony taking out a morcha protesting against Patkar’s role and the state government for acceding to her demands.

Which is why such fasts and other coercive tactics are now being viewed with increasing scepticism by both the public and the government.

But the real reason for the rise of people like Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev is the complete vacuum in the real political arena caused by the complete erosion of credibility of all parties and their leaders.

No political party can really organize and lead such an agitation against corruption. Even if they did, they would not garner the same level of public support.

The people have no faith in political parties and leaders, and hence they are moving towards such non-party leadership.

For instance, the BJP has openly supported Ramdev. But the question is, why didn’t the party organize such an agitation or fast on its own? The answer is simple: its past while in power at the centre will haunt it, and so will the situation in Karnataka. And that is the weakness of every party in the country.
The inability of mainstream political parties to launch such agitations with popular support, and the growing support for such movements by non-party leaders is not a good sign.

In a democracy, people elect their representatives to enact laws and to look after their problems. Civil society, different organizations, independent leaders do have a role to play in highlighting certain issues and problems. But this is a limited role. Crossing those limits can undermine the democratic institutions, which will create new problems.
If the babas and other gurus are to be stopped from taking centre-stage with popular public support, political parties and leaders of all shades will have to indulge in some serious introspection. They will have to bring in changes within to instil confidence among the people, make them believe that they are reliable, trustworthy, non-corrupt. They will need to leverage their bonds with the masses, and make them believe that they –and the system—work for the public good.

It is time the political parties took serious steps to re-establish their credibility. Only then the people will turn to them once again.

Corruption: Are we fighting ourselves?

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.