I have now been part of several arguments - at home, at work and in my mind - about Anna Hazare and his crusade against corruption. This is a narrative, description of feelings, an attempt to describe my personal "thought-journey" as this movement has progressed.
I started from a purely cynical point where I had vague misgivings and spontaneous irritation at the sanctimonious tone and tenor of the debate (especially of those arguing for Anna and his movement) and my initial intent was to just heckle, tease, irritate. An urge born out of resentment...of people pretending to moral righteousness, preaching social conscience while perpetrating daily retail corruption and anti-social behavior. Middle class men who bribed their way out of traffic rules, middle class women who were cruel to their servants, young men who smuggled ipads and ipods without paying duties, film stars who cheated on their taxes, news anchors who deliberately misrepresented facts, students who cheated their way through exams - they were the loudest in preaching "anti-corruption". Nobody seemed to say "
I am / have been corrupt and I can change a lot of that without the Lokpal". Everyone seemed to be filled with outrage at the politicians and the government. It reminded me of the middle class obsession in this country with "comfortable contained spirituality" - limited to packaged presentations on TV channels...where a few breathing exercises became Yoga and listening to a 30 mins sermon on Aastha made one feel spiritually cleansed. It is convenient and feel-good. And thus, at first, I was just cynical and detached.
Many of these heckling sessions and debates have forced me to introspect and go beyond. There are people I respect, people who are well intentioned and well informed who are passionately for Anna and his movement. Why? Is this "vague unease" with the whole thing on my part purely a reaction of my cynical nature or is their an intuitive logic to it that I have not forced myself to crystallize into coherent arguments. So I have thought and forced myself to think independent of my biases and prejudices against people who are supporting the movement. And here is what I think (I have omitted may arguments which come to me but have been presented again and again on TV or other fora to spare repetition)
1) Men behind the movement (for Anna is but the face) have orchestrated it brilliantly. Put a "saint" at the forefront - this country is a sucker for saints and self-sacrifice. Ramayan has always been easier to understand and sell than Mahabharat. Absolve everyone but the "politicians" of the blame for a disease which every single one of us has helped spread - everyone feels good. Act naive - naivete gains sympathy and popularity and is the best weapon against logic. Remember Raj Kapoor who did it film after film to become a bigger super star than more capable actors. A Balraj Sahni can never be a super star. And throw in a lot of slogans.
2) The movement is riddled with logical contradictions. How can you believe that the Government will not allow the Lokpal bill to pass in the right form through democratic pressures (and therefore we must fast and force it to) and yet believe that once passed the Lokpal bill will solve anything. The government, the "super-villain" that it is, can easily not allow the Lokpal to function once it comes into existence. Will we be on a perpetual fast, the majority of population forcing the government to do what it ought to do in any case by boycotting food and work? Surely if we believe that Lokpal bill will work once passed, we must be ready to believe that the government can be made to work (otherwise we should organize a movement for a "government less" country).
If there is such a popular sentiment against corruption and the present set of politicians, why do we think it is impossible to elect a new and honest party to the government - why not elect Anna Hazare as the next PM and his team as the cabinet and pass the Lokpal bill. According to the rhetorical jingoism, there are a million people ready to sacrifice their career and lives to help build a corruption-free nation. Yet we will not find 500 odd people ready to fight elections and win on the back of the support of the million people protesting today? Why? Because, it is easy to fast and sloganeer and make speeches and wear Anna topis.
Our distrust for the government is palpable. We say the all political parties are equally corrupt and we need an parallel, independent policing system. Why will this system work? Who will appoint these watchdogs? Where will we find these infallible, incorruptible people? Did we not at some point envision the Prime Minister's office to be held by a person of unimpeachable integrity? Was the judiciary not, in theory, designed to be independent? Today we want a watch dog for judiciary and talk about judicial crimes? Who will watch over the Lokpal when that become corrupt?
3) I believe corruption is an issue and like most issues it needs preventive measures as well as punitive measures to resolve. If you ask me, we have punitive measures aplenty in our country already and they are not working - because these punitive measures are supposed to be administered by human beings who are fallible and corruptible. You cannot scare corruption away. India is a religious country and most Indians believe in the existence of God who punishes the corrupt - yet corruption is higher than in the supposedly un-ascetic West. Why? Because, the external God is only as powerful as that - the inner God, our own moral fiber and conscience cannot be substituted by the threat of an external virtuous God. And there is no shortcut to building that. You can fast and browbeat the evil government and the politicians but there are no easy solutions to the resident evil - what are you going to do the next time you violate a traffic rule, or your son cheats on the taxes, or you need to pay up in black for property?
4) I think corruption in India has diminished and changed in nature. A lot of it I attribute to increased literacy, economic upliftment, technological advancement and reduction of government interference. e-ticketing has reduced reliance on overcharging touts for rail tickets and e-passport will have a similar effect. Simple and very specific solution for a specific problem. Of course there is corporate corruption of late. Remember this is not politicians - these are non-political corruptions. As I said, no substituting the moral fiber.
Let me summarize. I think corruption is a generally a result of 3 situations : A) Moral bankruptcy, B) Scarcity, C) Excess. B) and C) are relative measures and essentially two sides of the same coin - inequality. Only in an unequal distribution, does scarcity or excess mean anything. And I believe that development is the best tool to reduce inequality.
5)There is no alternative to Government and democracy. There is no alternative to making these two work. And no short-cuts. You get the government you deserve. You have elected it - do not wash your hands off it so glibly. And if you haven't (as is true of most of the middle class supporters of Anna) then you turn up in the next elections. Until then, your jingoism is hypocrisy. If you say that the masses- illiterate, rural, impoverished, gullible masses have elected the present set of corrupt politicians, well then you change that reality by creating an India which has more educated, discerning voters than otherwise. You can't disrespect their verdict because they are the current India and may be they'd rather elect these corrupt politicians in exchange for money, food, other populist measures or hope (that potent opium for the poor and the deprived) than die for an empty, impractical ideal.
These are my opinions. These are no arguments - I do not want to argue any more. I have rebelled for rebellion's sake and I know it feels good. But that is what it is - a feel-good short term measure. And no, it doesn't mean that I support the present government or the present set of politicians or that I am pro-corruption. But then, why do I need to clarify that? That has been Anna's biggest impact on me - he has made me explain and defend myself for a perfectly tenable and logical point-of-view (not necessarily superior) that is different from his and his supporters.
