|
A day before what turned out to be
Anna Hazare's flop show in Mumbai, his colleagues were full of
hype and hubris during a television debate.
It wasn't only that they claimed overwhelming popular support for
their cause - 80 percent of the surveys confirmed this, according
to them - they argued from this figure that since 80 percent of
the people were with them, the elected representatives in the
legislatures were not genuine representatives at all in view of
their opposition to Team Anna's version of the Lokpal bill.
As such, Prashant Bhushan, a member of the team known for his
sympathies for Maoists and Kashmiri separatists, wanted the
present parliamentary system to be scrapped in favour of a
"participatory" democracy where the vox populi will have greater
resonance.
It is doubtful whether Bhushan, and Justice Santosh Hegde, who was
also present, will reiterate their demand for changing the system
now that all the hot air has seeped out of their balloon. But it
is noteworthy how a temporary exhibition of mobocracy can fuel
irrational sentiments.
Nor is this the first time that the country has been held hostage
to such simulated feelings. Two decades ago, mobs were similarly
mobilised by the saffron brotherhood to bring down a mosque and
target other sacred sites of the minorities to boost Hindu pride.
The slogan then was 'garv se kaho hum Hindu hain' (say with pride
I am a Hindu), just as the (rapidly fading) chant now is 'main
Anna hun' (I am Anna).
But it may not be fair to blame the politicians and civil
activists-cum-politicians alone for overblown campaigns. The
media, too, similarly misread whipped-up emotions as real ones,
especially those television channels that are forever at war with
rivals.
However, even some in the print media, who usually have greater
time to mull over what they write, saw Tahrir Square in the Jantar
Mantar gatherings last summer. Yet, they must have found out over
the last few days how absurd was their comparison if they saw the
intensely argumentative Indian in parliament on one-half of their
television screens while other half showed the near-empty meeting
ground of Anna and his men in Mumbai. That split-screen
presentation was proof enough why India was not Egypt.
If hauteur was the hallmark of Anna and immaturity of a section of
the media, deviousness and cussedness were those of the ruling
side and the opposition, respectively. The Congress may, or may
not, have anticipated the fizzling out of Anna's movement despite
the strong support for his cause if not his methods. But it was
evident that the party was not serious about a powerful Lokpal
right from the time when it first introduced a "toothless" bill to
the present when it tweaked the original version only marginally
to present a draft where political control over the ombudsman
remained a primary feature.
The party has also been aware all along that, like itself, none of
its allies, whether Lalu Prasad or Mulayam Singh Yadav or Mayawati,
is in favour of a powerful Lokpal who can nip the financial
shenanigans of politicians in the bud. And, for all its posturing,
it is difficult to believe that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),
the party of B.S. Yeddyurappa, is dead against sleaze considering
how the former Karnataka chief minister had to be dragged kicking
and screaming from his post after being charged with corruption.
Since the Lokpal bill can now only be taken up in the budget
session, the intervening period will see the protagonists continue
their skirmishes from where they left off in parliament. But the
BJP's difficulty is that it will have to fight alone since it can
no longer piggy-back Anna's team, as it was doing till now. And
its explanation that it did not bring the Lokpal bill during its
six-year tenure (1998-2004) because none of its ministers was
accused of misappropriating Rs 176,000 crore might not be totally
convincing.
It may be too pessimistic to say that the bill has again reached
the state of limbo where it has been languishing since 1968, but
the possibility cannot be ruled out. Since the political class
will block it on one pretext or another - for being either weak or
damaging for the federal structure - an easy passage is
problematic, not least because the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
does not have a majority of its own - something which it may not
regret because it does not seem too eager to enact the bill any
way.
It was the moral pressure exerted by Anna which forced the
government to act. But, then, Anna shot himself in the foot by
ratcheting up his agenda to unrealistic levels by claiming to be
superior to all - Anna is India, India is Anna, as one of his
acolytes said. As is known, pride goeth before a fall.
Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. He can be
reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com
|
Comments
|
Quick links