This is by my good friend Barun Mitra. The original version was published here.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Many of today’s anti-corruption protestors believe that they are participating in the second freedom struggle from misrule. Ambedkar had warned against extra-constitutional means of protests. But today, in the name of Gandhi, many believe that constitutional processes are expendable. It is good that Gandhi is back in the public memory. If this provides an opportunity to try and understand him, it will be even better. While the tumultuous protests we are witnessing today seem to cluster under the umbrella of Gandhism, but how Gandhian is the Anna Hazare led movement, asks Barun Mitra.
What we see: social activist Anna Hazare forever poised on the lip of a threat, that of a prolonged fast. What we know: Hazare is demanding that the Parliament of India adopt the Jan Lok Pal bill, as drafted by his team, promising to create a new, independent and anti-corruption agency.
What with the fasting and a leader wearing a white cotton cap of a certain kind, it seems that Gandhi and Gandhism, is back in vogue again. Gandhi led one of the greatest political movements the world had ever witnessed – India’s non-violent march towards independence from colonial rule. Many of today’s protestors believe that they are participating in the second freedom struggle from misrule.
And so, they don the Gandhi cap as they join street protests against corruption and mis-governance in India. Cap=Gandhi, fasting=Gandhism? Equally, while exercising the freedom to protest, there is a danger of undermining the very constitutional processes that have protected these freedoms.
Gandhi led the Indian struggle for Independence but he did not fast against British rule as such. Occasionally, he did protest against specific actions or policies of the British by fasting, such as better facilities in prisons.
Actually, the contrast could not be starker between the original Gandhi and his self-proclaimed heirs of today. Gandhi did not fast to fan anger and didn’t seek to bring pressure on the government. His political fasts always had a very specific message for his followers. He did not need to fast on a public platform, nor did he need to appear on 24/7 news channels. Yet his political fasts carried the message, strongly, succinctly, and widely, inspiring millions. Gandhi’s self-denial was an occasion for introspection, and bringing the spotlight on the issue at hand. This is why almost on every occasion he was willing and able to compromise and carry his critics along.
There is no doubt about the angst in society today. A large section of the populace has been both victim as well as participant in the prevailing corrupt environment, governance failure and economic mismanagement. The lack of credible political leadership at the moment has created a vacuum, and it is this space that civil society activists like Anna Hazare has filled. However, good intentions are not sufficient to cure all ills. It is much easier to join a popular campaign, rather than doing the requisite hard work to understand the underlying causes.
As for the coverage in the mass media, the 24/7 news media have their own interests in stoking the fire in pursuit of the drama, and hardly have the time and space necessary for a dispassionate discourse on any issue.
Gandhi taught the world the power of satyagraha, peaceful civil disobedience, as he led India’s struggle against British rule. Today, however, the Congress party, which he once led, is seen to be muzzling the peaceful protest led by Anna Hazare in Delhi.
Gandhi had transformed Indian politics by converting the Congress from a select club to a mass movement. Today, the same party seems confused as it confronts a few thousand people on the street.
Gandhi gave a completely new meaning to the concept of fasting, by turning the traditional Indian ritual into a powerful political tool. The fasting symbolised Gandhi’s own conviction and reflected his confidence in his followers. Gandhi was a leader who expected his friends and followers to rise to the high standards that he set. Today, political leadership primarily consists of pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Gandhi initiated fasts on a number of occasions throughout his long public life. However, he was anything but inflexible. On February 4, 1922, police fired on a procession of protestors near Gorakhpur. A rampaging mob then set fire to the police station in Chauri Chaura, killing more than 20 policemen. Gandhi called off the agitation despite objection from his colleagues in the Congress Party. He felt that his followers had not yet grasped the essence of non-violence and therefore, were not ready to undertake satyagraha. This capacity to lead from the front, established Gandhi as the true leader of the masses.
Highlights from a few of Gandhi’s fasts
- In South Africa, Gandhi went on a fast as a penance for some moral lapse on the part of two inmates of his ashram. He also undertook a fast when some members objected to the admission of a few Harijans to the ashram.
- In 1919, Gandhi went on a 72- hour fast to protest the massacre of civilians by British troops in Jalianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab, and also in opposition to the public disturbances that followed in other parts of the country.
- In November 1921, Gandhi vowed to fast on every Monday till India gained swaraj or self-rule.
- In February 1922, Gandhi went on a fast to introspect and underscore the significance of peaceful civil disobedience among his followers, following the deaths of policemen in Chauri Chaura.
- In 1933, Gandhi undertook a fast for his own self-purification and that of his colleagues.
- In 1939, while on a three- day fast to protest some decisions of the ruler of Rajkot, Gandhi issued a statement, appealing to Congressmen “to make supreme efforts to clean the Congress house of proved corruption and impurities.”
In 1932, Gandhi started his politically most controversial fast while in jail, in Pune. The British government had accepted a proposal for separate electorate for lower caste sections of the population, following a demand from Dr B. R. Ambedkar. Gandhi went on a fast against this proposal. He was not fasting against the British government but wanted Ambedkar to withdraw his demand, and not divide the Indian Hindu population on caste lines. After days of negotiations, a compromise was reached, and it was agreed that rather than a separate electorate, a certain number of seats in the assembly would be reserved for the lower caste sections, in order to facilitate their political participation.
Ambedkar was not very happy with the Poona Pact but he accepted the compromise because he felt that if something were to happen to Gandhi, he and the lower caste population would be blamed, and that would put at risk whatever little progress was being made in the matter.
In 1947, India was partitioned, and Pakistan was carved out, at the time of Independence. Millions of people were uprooted from their homes. Hindus sought to move to India, and Muslims to Pakistan. Emotions ran high and communal riots engulfed Bengal in the east, Punjab in the west.
The government of India struggled to keep peace in the west, as refugees poured into Delhi. Gandhi and a handful of followers went on a march through rural Bengal, comforting victims and seeking an end to the senseless violence.
Then Gandhi performed his biggest miracle in September 1947. He went on a fast in Calcutta, in an ordinary house in a Muslim locality in the city. He said he did not want to see the destruction of the ideals he had tried to strive for all his life. Gandhi declared that unless the violence ended, he would prefer to die. As the word of his fast spread, citizens and leaders began to come out, calling for peace. In three days, the 78- year- old Gandhi was able to calm the religious frenzy and the mob violence ebbed.
Today, the protestors claim to believe in constitutional democracy but do not seem to believe in the legitimacy of the elected Members of Parliament. They claim to represent the angst of the masses against corruption but feel that the same masses are gullible and would never elect ‘honest’ people to office. They claim to be followers of Gandhian ideals… yet one of the most talked about Anna Hazare legends is of him tying up village drunkards to a tree and whipping them with a belt!
Gandhi spoke of village republics. Anna has been stressing that in a democracy sovereignty lies with the people, and it is the gram sabhas that is the foundation of democracy. Yet, Anna has no hesitation in acknowledging that if he were to contest an election, he is likely to lose his deposit, because the people are ignorant. It is this kind of disdain, which gives rise to the sense of arrogance that only Anna has the light, and that those who disagree are either living in the dark or must be corrupt.
For those who want to uphold Gandhian values and fight corruption, it would be worthwhile to ponder if their target should be the elected government of the day, or if, like Gandhi, they could inspire people to eschew the giving and taking of bribes.
The anti-corruption campaigners want to create a strong and independent institution of Lok Pal, combining the roles of policing, investigation and prosecution, all in one. They may be looking for a Superman who could easily turn into Monster Man.
Caught in the middle of the anti-corruption battle, today’s crusaders seems to have forgotten that corruption is not merely a consequence of moral frailty but an outcome of policies that sanction state patronage, bestow favours, and distort the normal economic functions.
Institutions matter. But in their zeal to end corruption, the campaigners are attempting to de-legitimise the only institution which the people are able to hold accountable – the Legislature. Most other segments of society, be it family, industry, non-profit organisations, or religious orders, do not have such a regular and periodic turnover of leadership, as is the case with the elected representatives. For good or bad, less than half of the sitting legislators have a reasonable prospect of getting re-elected.
In the current turbulent times, it would be useful to remember what Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Committee which drafted the Constitution, said in the Constituent Assembly, in 1949:
If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgment we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
In the name of Gandhi, one should not throw his values and constitutional methods out of the window. Actually, it is good that Gandhi is back in the public memory. If this provides an opportunity to try and understand him, it will be even better.
Author : Mr Barun Mitra is the director of Liberty Institute, an independent public policy think tank in New Delhi.
This article was published in the Liberty Institute on Saturday, August 20, 2011.