‘Why Anna Why Ramdev’ are relevant in India even after six decade of Independence?
Anna Hazare sat on a ‘dharna’ for Lokpal in April
2011 and thereafter in August 2011. In the meantime, Baba Ramdev protested to
bring ‘black money’ back. Overwhelming support from every nook and corner of
the country erupted for both of them instantaneously. As if the stage was
already set and people were waiting for such leaders to emerge. Still those two
leaders hit the headlines. Those were neither the first movement of its kind
after independence nor were the people’s support unprecedented. As early as in
the 70s, JP mobilized people against the government and led a mass agitation. While
in 80s, VP backed out a popular government, and people supported him as well. Why?
It has been said that the country at the time of
launching these movements was in deep trouble and needed a drastic make over. People
may resort to mass agitation, a primitive response to distress, somewhat like defense
mechanism of regression, under grave distressful situations. However, before JP
movement, within three decades of independence, country took rapid strides on
domestic as well as international front despite all hardships and constraints.
There were many moments of national pride during that time. Rather, 70s was the
time to sink the differences and work harder for all round development, than to
go for an agitation. Again in 80s, people gave unprecedented mandate and the country
was heading towards 21st century, riding on the IT revolution, the
revolution which touched every wake of life and still is a guiding force for
the country’s growth. While India missed the scientific and the industrial
revolution in the history, it is a front runner of the IT revolution.
At the time of Anna and Ramdev movements, when the
major economic powers of the world were plunging into economic recession, India
not only survived, but also grew against all the odds. Education, sports,
culture and other aspects of the society were also doing well. Therefore, one
can reasonably rule out situation prior to those three movements to be grave
enough to call for a nationwide agitation.
Even if one argues the situations to be ‘grave
enough’, were the movements able to make them better? Were the movements able
to achieve what they intended to? The answer would be ‘No’, I suppose. Then why
such movements are repeated when there is no reinforcement by being successful?
Are succeeding movements, unfinished tasks of the preceding movements? Are
there people who work behind the curtain and manipulate people’s sentiments to
secure their purpose? These are the points often discussed, and seem to be plausible
explanations; but it cannot be proved beyond doubt. Is there any scientific
basis for such repeated movements in India?
It is possible that circumstances create leaders
like JP, Anna or Ramdev, and they incite people for a cause, or people create
circumstances in which such leaders emerge, or does it all happen spontaneously?
There seem to be many permutations and combinations which lead to mass
movements in India.
However, whichever way such movements go, whether successful
or not, whether they could solve the problem or worsen it, such ‘ad-hoc’
leaders, always have a win-win situation. When they manage to get their demands
accepted they celebrate, when their demands are not accepted they vindicate
their stand against the government.
Irrespective of all this, if the public across the
country participate in something, it cannot be ignored saying regression,
manipulation or incitement. One needs to look for the root cause. Winston Churchill once said, “The further backward you
look, the further forward you can see.” Let us see if there is something
in the history which can explain ‘Why Anna Why Ramdev’ are
relevant in India even after six decade of independence.
Indian subcontinent through ages had
been ruled by kings. People hardly had any say in the
governance leave aside choice of their ruler. There was a linear political
structure of State and subjects. The status
quo was challenged by the freedom fighters. For the first time there was someone to raise people’s voice
against the State. As the freedom struggle progressed, the freedom fighters became
an alternative to the British rule. The linear political structure of State and
subject changed into triangular structure of State, subjects and freedom fighters.
The freedom movement culminated into independence and the freedom fighters
(alternative) replaced the British rule and became people’s government. However,
the structure continued to be triangular, but with a remarkable change; that
is, citizens, people’s government and opposition (opposition was weak to begin
with), and election as the ‘change agent’. People were citizens now; all
powerful, with a lot of rights, including right to choose their
representatives.
People were happily living in their new found identity
as citizens. They were working closely with the government for nation building
from the scratch. Then JP emerged and claimed circumstances, perceived or real,
to be grave enough to go for a nationwide agitation. The circumstances created
during JP movement were such where people were doubtful about the government,
their status as citizen, and whether the citizen’s rights were of any value or
another betrayal by a government. They were scared whether the new arrangement
of democracy was working properly or not. Maybe they thought that before the
government became another British rule, it was time to act; once bitten twice
shy, as they say. Again VP in 80s projected the situation to be such which needed
drastic change. Both those movements emerged suddenly, dominated the Indian
political landscape, all the opposition parties, left, right, central, joined
hand with one point agenda to capture power and culminated in replacing the
government. There were agitating leaders to raise people’s concerns and
confront with the government. People enthusiastically supported them. The
political structure thus created was akin to that during freedom struggle; that
is government, agitating leaders and people.
When in doubt, go back to basics, they say. It is a known
fact that during learning, whenever learner is unclear or doubtful of their
newly acquired knowledge or skill, he or she tends to revert back to previous
level of learning. In the long history of existence, people have been subjects
and after independence they are citizens. The intervening period of freedom
struggle was another phase, when he was subject, but was ready to raise voice,
agitate against the State. Indian freedom struggle was one of the major events
in the history when people took an initiative and were successful. Therefore,
behavior of the people during those movements was closer to the behavior during
freedom struggle. The methodology used, objective, and progress of the movement,
very closely resembled with freedom struggle.
Anna and Ramdev agitations also resembled with the
previous movements; they created similar ambiance and people overwhelmingly
supported. However, there are subtle differences.
While during 70s and 80s, agitating
leaders were aligned with opposition parties, or for that matter who ever was
ready to oppose ruling party. The aim was to change
the government. In 2011, the civil society claimed to be maintaining equal distance from
ruling as well as opposition parties; though practically maybe somewhat closer
to one or at least somewhat more distant from the other parties. This
time the movement is not distorting the triangle, rather strengthening it, with
civil society aligned with people and other two angles being government and
opposition. People want to see civil society working for the people and not for
themselves that is, to capture power. Still, there
is strong pull and push for civil society to align with forces opposing the
government. This time if they join had with anti government parties this time
then probably people will not support.
Agitations during 70s were violent. The leaders went
to extent of appealing officers, civilian as well as armed forces, not to obey
the illegal orders of the government. The people’s response was not less
violent. They were more like subjects who are agitating against the State in
which they had very little, if at all any faith. They indiscriminately voted
out the government without evaluating the ability and the credibility of the
alternative claiming to replace for better.
In 2011, leaders as well as people were non-violent,
they wanted the government to pass Lokpal or to bring back the ‘black money’;
to that extent, they had faith in the government. There was a sense of
responsibility.
People in the midst of all this have constantly been
evolved. While in the previous movements people’s behavior was closer to that
of subjects, in 2011 their behavior was closer to that of citizens.
The Civil Society leaders seem to have evolved less
than that of the people of India. The civil society still use persuasive
communication and Anna and Ramdev once again set one point agenda in the
country from April which culminated in August. People listened to them, participated in their
‘dharna’, and procession, shouted in their support. But the assembly elections,
during and after these movements, were fought on the issues of common interests
that too local issues, not on the one point agenda set by the Civil Society
leaders. Further, people will give clear mandate in 2014 general election for a
broad based, strong and stable congress majority government.
The transition phase from subject to
citizen may be responsible for repeated movements in India and the paradigm
shift in the methodology and outlook of the movements. As and when the environment of agitation
created, people associate it with the freedom struggle, a phase which was
successful in reaching its goal and a previous stage in the long journey from
subject to citizen, and join it with high hopes.
Though such mass movements more often than not
failed to achieve what they intended to, they are the milestones in the
evolution of people of India as citizens from subjects. People as well as
politicians read the cues from such events. Politicians raise the bar and
deliver better, and people get mature, understand the difference between
‘ad-hoc’ and ‘regular’ leadership, and know who can deliver what. However, the movements
overall burn much more energy than what they achieve. Thus, JP, Anna and Ramdev
type leaders deliver, but at a premium price tag! A better way to transform
citizens from subject is to be looked for.
