‘Why Anna Why Ramdev’ are relevant in India even after six decade of Independence?

‘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 21^st 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.