The Anna Hazare Phenomenon

Once Anna Hazare's fast ended and a few days passed, I found myself asking the question – What was this movement all about?

It was not a mass movement like, say, Rath Yatra, yet it moved a significant section of Indian population quite like a popular movement that changes a nation's history. It was a Gandhian sort of effort, yet it attracted the most westernized of Indians as supporters. It was a movement started by a native Indian Hindu, yet supported most by leftists and hardened secularists. Finally, it appeared to be popular, yet it seeks to subvert popular mandate by insisting on a bill that will put handpicked “Nobel prize winners”, “bharat ratna awardees” and such like above the democratically elected representatives, without commensurate accountability to people.

So what was the movement all about?

To answer the question, transport yourself to a village in interiors of India. The village still observes caste though segregation is not unbearably oppressive. In the village is a lone Brahmin family, which gets respected by the entire village solely because of being Brahmins. The Brahmin elder, though he has no temporal powers, still wields his “moral” power, rooted in Hindu values.

Now imagine that the majority of villagers take a decision, say to remove a temple and build a Panchayat office in it's place, the temple structure to come up in a new location.

The Brahmin does not like the decision and believes that the temple should not be moved since for whatever reason, the location is sacrosanct. However, the popular decision (or “democratic” if you will) is that the temple should be relocated.

What does “panditji” do? He announces that he will go and jump into the well if the popular decision is not reversed. The whole village gets excited on hearing Panditji's decision. Panditji also announces (very conveniently) a date and time for jumping into the well. At the appointed hour, the whole village gathers at the well. Panditji comes and gives his speech outlining how the village has forgotten “Dharma” and that he sees no point in living in this kind of society. Since the majority of the villagers have taken the decision that will institute the rule of “Adharma”, he has no choice but to give up his life.

The villagers, of course, would have none of it. Popular will shifts. The village leaders sense that they cannot annoy the villagers. They are now ready for compromise. With folded hands they request panditji to honor the village by reversing his decision. After some hawing and humming, the Brahmin gives up the “sankalpa” to give up his life and comes back. The temple remains where it was, development plans for the village are suitably altered.

This behavior, both of “moral leaders” and of the people, has been a constant feature of the Hindu society over ages. By popular will, the popular will itself is subordinated to the dictates of a moral leader provided such a leader is accepted as epitome of moral values. Gandhi was one such leader. Those who have closely studied his life and politics will agree that he was no democrat in the sense democracy is understood. He was, before anything else, a moral leader in the strictest Hindu sense. He could get his way simply by risking his life.

Anyone who has cared to examine things will realize that Anna Hazare's movement and the Lok Pal bill in the form proposed by him and his followers are profoundly undemocratic. Popular will does not lie with Anna Hazare. Howsoever one might dislike politicians, the truth is that the popular will lies with the politicians. It is for them that literally hundreds of millions come out of their houses, stand up in queues, take other personal inconveniences and vote them to power.

Anna Hazare has no capability to mobilize the real masses of India. He admitted his undemocratic nature openly. He said people don't understand things. They vote because they get a few hundred rupees or bottles of country liquor. Not because they think a politician will do good for the society. Many politicians too came on TV and said he and his movement are undemocratic. Questions were raised if we should give up democracy because certain sections of “civil” society don't like the representatives elected by popular will, howsoever serious be the charges against them.

This brings us to one of the central questions facing all democracies – what if the masses of people are either “evil”, in the sense that they want supremacism of some kind, or if they are so ignorant that giving voting power to them actually spoils governance in the country.

If, for instance, popular will was taken in any Muslim society, one can kiss goodbye to all that modern secular, free democracies stand for.

Anna Hazare, in reality, used a native Hindu tradition to compensate for “bad” decisions taken by democratic popular will in India. Quite like the Brahmin gets his way against a popular decision in the village. We may debate whether such a thing is good in modern India, or whether it is bad and we should go strictly by democratic process, but first let us first understand what happened. And what happened was the triumph of Hindu “moral” authority over popular will.

Now to cast our votes (how ironical!) on whether giving space and even authority to such “moral” crusaders is correct or not in a modern, constitutional democracy. My own view is that in India, we should allow some authority to persons of moral stature like Anna Hazare. India is still an immature democracy. Indians are still rather immature and a little old fashioned subversion of popular will will not harm us. Unless of course we become addicted to it.

I think that we indeed have misused our democratic rights. While old fashioned imperialism cannot be the answer – it's social order was always based on apartheid of some sort, this kind of movement by a person of impeccable moral stature, unsullied by any kind of politicization (note that he was supported by both secularists and nationalists) should get it's way and should have a say in the way the country is governed. I am happy that Anna Hazare bent the government to his will.

That should not take away our political responsibility to improve the democratic and constitutional processes. We cannot forever be dependent on “Nobel prize awardees” and “Bharat Ratna” for ensuring that politicians do not indulge in unbridled corruption. That assurance should eventually come from normal democratic and constitutional processes. Anna Hazare (and other similar persons) can be only a stopgap measure.

Having cast my vote, a word of caution too. This kind of movement has the potential to create a powerful coterie of one or the other political combine that has no accountability to people but wields undue influence on legitimate, democratically elected representatives. It will be a social and political dysfunction if the persons who get influence through this route, instead of fighting corruption and other universally agreed scourges of Indian society, start pushing their “secular” version of Indian narrative with their new found influence. So long as we are able to guard against that risk, Anna Hazare, the modern day panditji in the grand Indian village, will have added value to our political and governance process.