जनलोकपाल कोणासाठी भाग ४

Reflections on the andolan of
Anna Hazare

( Dr. Uttara Sahasrabuddhe, Mumbai University)

प्रस्तूत लेख हा मुंबई विद्यापीठातील राज्यशास्त्र विभागात प्राध्यापक पदावर कार्यरत असलेल्या डॉ. उत्तरा सहस्त्रबुद्धे यांनी लिहीलेला असून यात त्यांनी अण्णांची सिवील सोसायटी आणि तत्सम एनजीओंच्या एरिया ऑफ इंटरेस्टचे परखड आणि मार्मिक असे विश्लेषण केले आहे. एका बाजूला सारी सुज्ञ मंडळी छातीठोकपणे सांगत आहेत की, अण्णांच्या आंदोलनाला समाजातील सर्वच थरांतील शिक्षक आणि विद्यार्थीवर्गाचा पाठींबा आहे. पण त्याच वर्गाने केलेली समीक्षा खुल्या दिलाने स्विकारण्याची हिम्मत मात्र दाखवत नाहीत. डॉ. उत्तरा सहस्त्रबुद्धे ह्या आंतरराष्ट्रीय राजकारणाच्या उत्कृष्ट जाणकार आहेत. वृत्तवाहीन्यांवर चालणार्‍या चर्चासत्रांमध्ये आंतरराष्ट्रीय घडामोडींवर त्यांचे मत आवर्जून घेतले जाते. अनेक नामांकित संस्थांमध्ये त्यांची व्याख्याने झाली आहेत. अशा स्थितीत त्यांनी लिहीलेला लेख वाचताना कृपया त्याच चष्म्यातून वाचावा कारण लेखिकेच्या प्रत्येक शब्दामध्ये त्यांचा आयुष्यभराचा अनुभव आणि मुत्सद्दीपणा सामावलेला आहे  याची आपण नोंद घ्यावी..

Let me begin by noting some uncomfortable facts about Anna Hazare and his andolan for the Jan Lokpal Bill:

1. The Lokpal proposed in the Team Anna bill is an authoritarian monster – a single person having power to investigate as well as prosecute almost everyone, but not being responsible to anyone, is not acceptable in a democracy.
   
2. The inability, even the unwillingness, of Team Anna to work towards a compromise, move towards some middle ground displays self-righteousness that is completely inconsistent with democracy. Democratic decision-making is not about making ‘right’ decisions, it is about exploring a working convergence among diverse interests.  
3. Anna himself appears to be a Shikhandi, if not a puppet – someone else is actually shooting from behind his shoulders. Who are they? It is the so-called ‘civil society’ – comprising of some NGOs, some corporate, some former bureaucrats, judges, etc.
   
4. They appear to have huge support from the urban middle class, especially the urban youth. It is likely that this class either supports authoritarian offices like the one in Team Anna bill, and/or has not completely read, and therefore understood, the implications of such office. In any case, it is quite evident that this class is frustrated and disgusted with the attitude of the entire political class – not just the ruling party, but all parties and all politicians.

        For reasons above, the Anna Andolan can be termed as undemocratic, and his satyagraha can indeed be called duragraha.

         As the events unfolded after 16^th August, it will have to be accepted that most people had underestimated the sympathy Anna Hazare as a person and his andolan has among common Indian citizens. This is evident through the spontaneous support rendered to him by Mumbai Mill Workers as well as the Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana of Raju Shetty based in Kolhapur, for example. Apparently, this andolan has been able to mobilise support even in semi-urban and rural areas. It is difficult to dismiss it as a farce of some ‘urban, white collar, rightist’ elements. Another important thing about this andolan so far is that it has been completely non-violent – not one incident of violent action on part of the protesters.

The support of the people to the andolan as well as its non-violent nature probably explains the bizarre reactions of the Indian Government to the andolan – denying permission initially to it and arresting Anna in the morning of 16^th August; sending him to Tihar jail after being chargesheeted; and a complete volte face in the evening by withdrawing charges against him, mainly looking at the response of the people. The Government does have a right to impose Cl. 144 and take action if it is violated. But at the end of the day, it appeared helpless.

            If the Government is helpless, the Congress party is comic. On the other hand, parties such as the Shiv Sena or the RJD have been opportunist in joining the popular bandwagon. The most cunning has been the BJP. It seems to have sensed the popular pulse well before the other parties and thus, is out to take full advantage of this andolan. There is no guarantee that the BJP will benefit electorally as a result. However, Anna’s andolan has somewhat changed the discourse of Indian politics, at least temporarily, taking it away from its pretentious dichotomies – centre-periphery, secular-non secular, upper-lower castes, local-migrants, etc. And the BJP is best positioned to benefit as a result.

           What is the morale of this story? The frustration with the ‘corrupt system’ is incredibly huge. More serious, however, is the fact that the masses are not merely frustrated with political parties or the ruling elite, they appear to be frustrated with the entire ‘system’ – political, legal, judicial. Hence, support for the monstrous Lokpal. Also serious is the clear disconnect between the people and the law-makers. Whatever the theory of democracy, the law-makers are not perceived as reflecting public will or opinion. Hence, a big question-mark on parliamentary democracy.

            There has been a talk of ‘parliamentary supremacy’ in the context of this ongoing conflict between the law-makers and Anna’s so-called civil society. One needs to understand that in the Indian context, the Parliament is superior in case of a conflict with the judiciary and the executive. It may be debatable to what extent it is superior vis-à-vis the Constitution of India. But there is no doubt about who is superior in a conflict between the Parliament and the people – the people are sovereign. Therefore, if the people feel that the Parliament does not adequately reflect their wishes, and when elected representatives fail to take note of popular feelings, people get frustrated with the system. It may be worthwhile, therefore, and appropriate at this juncture, to rethink our parliamentary system. It may be worthwhile thinking about ending the monopoly of legislatures over law-making power. It may be worthwhile extending power of initiating laws and giving final approval to them, at least in a very limited way, directly to the people. Many contemporary democracies have evolved such devices of direct democracy and are using them quite successfully. There is no reason why a matured democracy like India should shy away even from thinking about and debating such alternatives.  

Uttara Sahasrabuddhe

Associate Professor, Dept of Civics & Politics

Pherozeshah Mehta Bhavan

University of Mumbai, Vidyanagari Campus

MUMBAI 400098 (INDIA)