It ought to be noted that at the time, in Kerala and West Bengal, where the political faculties of the middle class was highly evolved, the anti-corruption movement made little impact. But for other urban Indians, the fast was their first glimpse into a political movement, and they transmitted the revolution through the current of naive passion. Now, the urban middle class is far from naive; it is deeply political.
The fact is that Hazare dislikes the urban upper middle class. In fact, in , the first two days of his revolutionary fast were not merely anti-politician, it was essentially anti-rich. He and his followers lamented that politicians were building roads and airports when farmers were starving. But when Team Anna saw the support of the urban middle class, the anti-corruption movement became a clearly focused movement against politicians.
In that form, it was an anti-Congress movement not only because the Congress was at the helm of the government. In fact, the anti-corruption movement got urban support only because its arch villain was the Congress. In public perception, the Congress party has a monopoly over corruption in a way the Bharatiya Janata Party BJP has a monopoly over communal injustice even though all significant political parties in India have been revealed as corrupt and communal. Hazare is going to find out that this time he is suddenly not as contagious as in But there is a triumph that the liberal media has won for the Congress in the recent months, which is to show farmers as a distressed community.
Once you define someone as a vulnerable group, it is easy to show the BJP as a majoritarian villain. Hazare may still have succeeded if he had one important quality of Gandhi. Gandhi was a part of the ruling social elite who had to masquerade as a poor man. He could set the agenda. The elite were with him. Hazare is not a part of the contemporary elite.
First, the Lokpal movement did not make the Manmohan Singh government unpopular. It gave voice to growing disenchantment with UPA It crystallised the sentiment — but the sentiment was there. Second, Anna Hazare was just the mask. He was the mukhauta , the face chosen by Arvind Kejriwal for the Lokpal movement.
Once Anna Hazare was no longer needed, he was discarded. Question is, where does that leave Anna Hazare? Were his intentions mala fide? Who is the real Anna Hazare? What did he want then and what does he want now? These questions may be politically inconsequential today but just for curiosity and closure, we need to know the answers. Anna Hazare, after all, left his mark on a defining chapter in the history of modern India. In the book, Gandhi claims credit for turning the Lokpal movement into the Anna movement.
He approached Mayank Gandhi to become part of it, just as he approached various people across the country from different backgrounds and different political persuasions, including the extreme Left and Right. Mayank Gandhi said he liked the idea but who would be the face of the movement? This was a critical question.
According to Gandhi, Kejriwal instantly agreed that this was going to be an issue and asked if he had anyone in mind. Gandhi said Anna Hazare, and described the pros and cons of using him. Today we can see all these qualities in Anna Hazare.
It became clear as the Lokpal movement was winding down that Anna Hazare wanted constant media attention. He wanted to not just be the face of a movement but the father of the nation. All he wants is attention.
He wants to be Kangana Ranaut, if not Narendra Modi. If he was 20 years younger and knew how to outrage people through Twitter, he would even have some chance to succeed. Anna Hazare as the face of the Lokpal movement was a hit.
And for all the reasons Gandhi mentions in his book. Anna Hazare was a Gandhian, a school of thought and mode of action that has great resonance in India, even today. He did not fit in neat ideological boxes: he was neither too Left nor too Right. He is urging the government to accept and implement the Jan Lokpal Bill, proposed to put power in the hands of civilians to end corruption.
The bill has been pending for 43 odd years. Hazare's fast has moved people so deeply that thousands of them, from across the nation, are taking to the streets. And what's more, on Wednesday, Sharad Pawar, infamous for corruption allegations against him, had to unwillingly resign from the Group of Ministers, under extreme public pressure.
We asked idiva readers how effective and important this move was for a corruption-free India. Here's what they had to say: How effective and important is this move for a corruption-free India? I think Anna Hazare is doing the right thing by building public pressure on the government. Corruption in India is too bad and I would personally like to support the uprising. Anna Hazare has succeeded to create the momentum which had been missing in the past for so many years.
I think that the government will finally have to change their stand against this bill, if the public pressure continues to persist. Anna Hazare has taken an ideal step to prove the power of democracy. He is a common man like us, but he has immense power to influence public opinion. The government will have to take action in favour of the Jan Lokpal Bill.
0コメント