A week has gone by since Anna Hazare began his fast unto death — taking on behalf of Indian civil society the first, Gandhian, step towards rooting out corruption. I resisted the use of several inverted commas in that first sentence, but there is one adjective that concerns me. It demands punctuation, cries out for explanation. It is the word ‘Gandhian’.
Indian news channels, whose cable-home, middle-class viewership is a superset of the constituency that Team Anna represents, have made the business decision to go in for saturation coverage of the agitation: protest coverage pays. But with every image they show, every speech they broadcast and almost every comment they make, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is invoked.
There are Gandhi topis on sale and on heads in the crowd. The round rim of at least one half of his famous spectacles is in the frame when some comedian gets up to entertain a crowd slightly bored of watching a man not eating. When the man himself rises to speak, he does so with the sophistication of the late night televangelist, but mentions a key word repeatedly: ‘ahimsa’ (non-violence).
I am afraid I find this circus — with its supporting cast of involuntarily winking charlatans, stage astrologers reading national horoscopes and alarmingly off-key bhajans quartets — uninspiring. In fact, I find it distasteful and cheap. In other words, I find it ‘neo-Gandhian’.
I might have had fewer problems with this alleged mass movement had it not so deliberately relied on Gandhi. I might have glossed over the illiteracy of the formula for corruption’s extinction that Team Anna provided (the Daft Jan Lokpal Bill), thinking of it as ‘at least a start’. Arundhati Roy, writing in The Hindu, dismissed what the ‘movement’ insists must be tabled and passed in parliament, as something that simply could not be taken seriously. I would have to agree on objective grounds.
My disappointment is not so much with a piece of paper that may or may not get to become legislation. It lies instead with the devaluation of what it means to be a Gandhian. Several commentators have talked about the hypocrisy India’s opportunistic, bribe-giving, tax-evading middle-class, and the naiveté and herd mentality of the youth it has spawned. That the ‘India Against Corruption’ Facebook page (one of the more popular forums) has nearly half a million ‘likes’ should give you a sense of the scale of this movement. That the ‘zoo-zoo’ cartoon characters from a telecom ad campaign have 2.2 million ‘likes’ and show up in ‘similar pages’, should, however, give you pause.
None of this clicking, calling, texting or fasting, however, makes any difference if you are talking Gandhi. The Boss talked basics. As in: are you willing to make personal sacrifices, weather personal losses, endure personal suffering, for a just cause? This thought is a degree of evolution ahead of mere restraint, or ‘ahimsa’.
Apart from giving up some time to attend the Woodstock-like gatherings (if only the music was better…) no one from our neo-Gandhian masses is being called upon to make — or volunteering — a personal sacrifice. The token arrests and releases for loosely enforced laws just don’t cut it. General Dyer isn’t saying ‘fire!’. The tanks aren’t moving in like in Tiananmen Square. Even the Indian government isn’t that foolish. When Gandhi urged people to break laws, he made one thing very clear: they must also face the consequences of their actions. If they chose, deliberately, not to pay a tax, then they must accept any punishment the state hands down for this breach. Sixty thousand people did prison time for selling small quantities of salt.
I haven’t heard a specific message (leave alone seen specific action) that communicates this agitation actually has anything substantial to do with the Gandhi portrait constantly in the background.
Are its thousands of stakeholders (not just one man on a fast) willing to personally take on the state? Here is an idea that middle-class businessmen would love. Given the government’s lack of accountability and the regular looting of national wealth, they might, for instance, refuse to pay income tax. They are already experts at doing this without advertisement. But would they be willing to pay all penalties handed down as a result? Anna doesn’t ask the question. Given this lot, Bapu would think twice as well.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 26th, 2011.
COMMENTS (19)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Cynical:
we need tough and shrewd people like Kiran and Kejriwal to cut through the putrid morass of leather-skin politicians. SO whats the problem?
Avirook Sen,
You have the right to hold your opinions, however they pale to insignificance in face of the overwhelming and spontaneous support that was in evidence all across India - especially from the younger generations. Anna Hazare and his team have reawakened this new generation to the vision of Mahathma Gandhi - a vision that had been highjacked from us for over 60 years. This is a moment of great pride and joy for India and all those who value freedom and nonviolence. And, this is just the beginning. Anna Hazare has his goals set well beyond Jan Lokpal legislation.
Even in a highly developed free society such as USA, the great American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's had many harsh and violent critics. There is ample room for mere cynicism from the likes of Arundhati Roy and yourself.
@Khalid Ahmed @Akash @Arindom @Harkol and all others who are out here bashing the INTELLECTUALS (read those who oppose Anna's ways/attitude) in general and the author in particular.
After watching Mrs. Kiran Bedi's antics and utterance yesterday I am now fully convinced (had suspected all along) that she is a member of UNcivil society. As Javed Akhtar (he should expect a barrage of abuse from neo-gandians) very eloquently puts it, "If you want to see what intoxication of even a whiff of power can do, look at Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi.
Khalid Ahmed, Don't pay much attention to these self serving hacks. They have fattened themselves on the gravy train for so long using all kinds of -isms that they wouldn't even recognize a "moment" even if it's blew right in front of their faces. As for Dhoti Roy, the less said the better. She is just jealous that for all her sweet sounding prose and her gorgeous earrings, a simple, rustic Gandhian has come and pulled the rug from right under the feet of these babbling fools.
1) "Gandhian" is someone who draws inspiration from Gandhi and his principles. One doesn't have to be a replica of Gandhi to become a Gandhian. There have been Muslim Gandhians like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Atheist Gandhians like Nehru. In the same way Anna Hazare is also a Gandhian.
2) If there was modern free media in British India, the tv channels would have had heydays covering Gandhi's agitation. Would the author then call it a media driven drama? Or if there was capitalism in British India, people would have made fortunes selling Gandhi topis and Khadi cloths. Would the author then call the freedom struggle commercialism?
3) With a quick search I found at least half a dozen different "India Against Corruption" and "Anna Hazare" pages on Facebook with lakhs of fans in each of them. And the Vodafone Zoozoos are being shown in other countries now, so its not just Indian anymore.
4) Just because the Anna movement is not as intense as the freedom struggle doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Times are different, economies are different, worldviews are different. As an analogy, if there's a small exchange of fire at Franco-German border tomorrow, it'll shake the European Union and bring down world stock markets. Would the author then say "Meh, this is irrelevant because it's nowhere near the intensity of World War."?
I just have to make one point. The writer says the facebook page "India against corruption" has over half a million likes while the zoo-zoo cartoons has more than 2.2 million, questioning the reach of the movement. However, a little trawl through the FB will throw up many "India against corruption" pages with varying figures for people liking them. Rest of piece is too simplistic to deserve any comment. A flippant work.
Almost every Intellectual (here is a generalization for you - types with long hair, glasses or Jola), let off a lot of air, but they have been in cohorts with the establishment, supporting a corrupt system.
They have contempt for 'non-voting' class, as if that's a crime! Just because a person doesn't vote he doesn't stop having rights, or stop having a voice. It is just that he chose not to state his opinion or didn't find an exciting enough choice to exercise his choice!!
Also the nonsense about the Democracy, Parliament etc. Folks forget that any system tends to be static, and rarely changes itself without external stimulus. How can one expect status quo to be changed when the insiders (Political Parties) are the ones expected to make laws against their own power? There is a conflict of interest here. One choice would've been to go for a referendum, other is to give outside voices a greater space in any law/rule where the beneficiaries are the lawmakers themselves. No sane person can argue that I can fix my own salary, Parliament does that.
The constitution is not 'sacrosanct' and cast in stone, if it was then the amendments to it would've been unnecessary. If amendments are indeed needed time to time, then it is only fair for folks to demand/pressurize their representatives to act to limit their power for wrong doing.
You are welcome to lift your hand and make laid back comments from your ivory towers, but Anna did something concrete. He forced political classes to rethink and do something about runaway corruption. Gandhi too had his share of critics, and one of them even put a bullet in to him. But Gandhi is the one who is remembered for having done some good.
The author is another typical 'Bong' left wing armchair intellectual - who have been so badly exposed inthe last elections in W.bengal!
There are +es and -es in this.
Here is a man who is willing to give up his life for what he believes in what is right, no matter if what he thinks is right is truly the way to go.
On the other hand, India is embarking on trying something which has not been every tried before in any Country. What if the Ombudsman and the methods to achieve it are wrong when we look back from the future?
I honestly dont know if I should support Anna Hazare.
@Hedgefunder: This writer like many other that have been ranting against Anna on ET is an Indian - not Pakistani as you assume.
You are thinking! And that is Good! we have somebody on the other side. You were not really that so funny, you can do a better Job. Try Again! But There aren't a lot of points you have made. I can rip them apart, You don't need Anna here. And Don't even mention Gandhi! Else you are no different than the ones you are criticizing. If somebody compares Anna with Gandhi, That is their View. Like you have the right to express your views anybody else has the equal right to express their view. So that is Point of your's is Pointless, if you understand "Freedom of Speech". Else I can't help. If you trying to argue that Gandhi is lot better than Anna. I don't think that is the point of our discussion. I don't think anybody wants to contest that. So we will skip that. If one has a serious medical condition then you need equally serious medicine to resolve it. If the over the counter medicine works for your condition, then it would be foolish and actually jeopardize your health if you try to take serious medicine. Likewise, if we don’t need Great Sacrifices like we made during freedom struggle there is no point making them. During those times even sacrificing someone life were not good enough. But today we don’t need that. Small sacrifices are good enough. By the way, taking out time to come out on the street, thinking about the problem, responding this way are all small sacrifices. Simple solutions are more than better than complex ones. I am not sure about the point you were trying to make about the numbers on Facebook. Are you missing out on news coverage? Don’t you see how many are out on the streets through the country and the international support? You are completely missing out much support his movement is drawing from people? Do you know the stats about have access to Internet? Do you know the stats about how many in India know facebook? I can go on but that was a very pre-mature comment/point. I agree to that our middle class is corrupt. Are you trying to say this gives our leaders right to be corrupt. Again, a very pre-mature thinking. My dear, I do speeding, I very rarely do drink driving. But tomorrow when I assume the role of a parent and I want to enforce “No speeding and No Drink Driving”. I need to be a role model to them. With every role you assume you get power and with it responsibility. “With Great power comes Great Responsibility” . “Your Leadership will reflect the attitude of your people”. In US, if a public figure such as senator commits a petty crime such as drink driving only slightly over alcohol limits, he comes out publicly to apologize. He doen’t have to do this. Most people would understand it, of course don’t worry about exceptions. What drives him is his Honesty and Responsibility. Our leaders need to feel the same. If not they need to step down. If they don’t step down, they need to be pulled down. And therefore we need a system to be able to do that. A PM should the Role model for all the people of his country including cabinet, ministers, judiciary, etc. If one were to be Prime minister, one should come forward first to include oneself to be bound by Law before he/she can ask people to do the same. Otherwise one does not deserve to be PM. This should be enough for You! Try Again and Give your Best Shot!
Being a Bengali, author is incapable of taking off his left-tinted glasses and see the bright shining truth that people of India are frustrated with the rampant corruption and inefficient bureaucracy.
All in all, very bogus and factually incorrect article!
And how have you contributed to making the society a better place? By writing these cynical articles...Being a cynic yourself, the only article worth while reading you could find was arunadhati roy's article...She has been rebutted successfully by many a columnists in the last couple of days..
You really need to look at your country and make an observation in regards to the same topic, and perhaps find any person from similar background or social position, willing to even attempt such actions thru means and principles of Non Violence, without brandshing their AK 47s and making veil threats !! Your renowned Land of Pure has the same problems, with borrowed or begged money, rather than generated money through its functions and economy, which you have chose to forget due to your amnesia, or selective vision !! Which one is it?? Time you too acknowledge the fact, that no society is perfect, however when one makes an effort to change it for better, is not to be laughed at, but to be admired.
Avirook,
I have been confused and wrestling with similar feelings for this convulsion and it was only recently that my thoughts finally crystallised.
While I agree with the substance of your's and Arundhati Roy's critique, I think it demands too much from something which is very fluid.
Let me explain.
First, I think the comparison to Indian National Movement and Gandhi is entirely appropriate but not in the ways that the media has been selling it. The National Movement itself was riddled with contradictions and flawed ideas of community, society and nation. Yes, Gandhi was a great leader but his whole take on the Dalits was extremely paternalist and the Poona Pact is seen by Dalit leaders as a great betrayal.
In an attempt to tear down Anna Hazare, let us not deify Gandhi - who despite his flaws was along with Nehru, Patel and Azad were men ahead of their times.
And thats the principle point - a mass movement's very nature is to be riddled with contradictions, an umbrella for people and classes with varying motives. Its leaders are flawed individuals who are deified. And the movements success lies less in reflection and more on a single point agenda. Reflection is a luxury that only promotes moderation and movements live on the margins, in extremes.
Second, I completely disagree with you on the (re)appropriation of national symbols. Gandhi, the Gandhi cap, the Indian flag - these have been appropriated and dirtied by electoral politics and in particular the Congress party. On Delhi's roads, buses and Metro - you see a flag waving patriotism that is not framed in dislike for the other (ie Pakistan or China or what have you) but in a desire to reclaim the national political space. Which left of center liberal cannot appreciate that?
And finally on Arundhati Roy. I was and remain a great admirer of her writing and her intellectual honesty. And who does not love radical critique - a polemic is the best and most entertaining form of writing. But after killing everyone on the field - the Indian state for its brutality, the bourgeois middle class, the role of corporations in framing imaginations and sanitise politics - whom do you negotiate with? How do you build consensus?
I took some time to get there. I was immensely moved by her writing on the NBA but many years later when studying the NBA movements as part of my Urban Planning studies, I realised that she polarised all the actors. The middle class which could have been a significant sources of support was instead ripped apart in all her essays. So there was no space to imagine someone like my brother in law - an upstanding member of India Inc. - wanting to go out and learn more about why people are protesting? And what are their demands?
There was no attempt to build support but only to butcher those who have benefited from India's liberalisation as others have lost out. And while that's intellectually honest, the Andolan lost out. Arundhati was not the principle cause but her intellectual star burns bright and sometime those who burn - including the Supreme Court - do not take it kindly.
I do not come here to praise the Jan Lokpal bill but to applaud a rare moment. Don't let your need for intellectual purity blind you to it.