Hazare’s brilliant maneuvering against the govt. has earned him plenty of criticism. One of the most persistent is that he weakened Indian democracy by bypassing existing channels and “blackmailing” or “forcing” the views of a small section of society on to the country. I believe this to be an utterly false reading of what Hazare did. If anything, he strengthened Indian democracy.
People going on hunger strikes is nothing new. The Indian govt. is used to being threatened with it. In the vast majority of cases, the hunger strikers are simply ignored. Their causes don’t have widespread appeal and when they see that no one cares, they simply end their fast voluntarily. Clearly, the govt. doesn’t care too much if a particular hunger striker dies per se.
In Hazare’s case however, the government listened and caved into pressure. This wasn’t because Hazare “forced” the govt. into anything. When you force someone, the entity being forced cannot possibly do anything else. The government could have ignored Hazare. If they had ignored him, the earth wouldn’t have shattered, Kapil Sibal would have still lived, and parliament would have still met. The truth however is that the UPA would have almost certainly lost the elections – both state wide and nationally.
Let me repeat that. The govt. caved to Hazare so that it wouldn’t lose the next elections. If that isn’t a democratic way of functioning, what is?
Hazare didn’t force his protest on the people or the government. He didn’t order a bandh or force people to close their shops. He didn’t sit on the railroad tracks and make a nuisance of himself. He didn’t threaten to stop the flow of food into Delhi and make everyone suffer (like the Jat leaders did). Instead, he chose to inconvenience only himself – and that is the democratic way of protesting.
Hazare was successful because he was able to rally the country around himself. Not because of the hunger strike as such. Without the support of the country, Hazare would have been ignored like so many others. With the entire nation backing him, he was able to pressurize the government into accepting his demands. He didn’t stage a coup to do it – that would have been undemocratic. The end result is that Hazare has acted in the most democratic way possible – by essentially telling the govt. it would lose the next elections if he died.
Hazare didn’t bypass democracy. He strengthened it by reminding the govt. that they are the servants of the people. And it would be the people who would have thrown the UPA out of power if it has not caved into pressure. Long live democracy!
I agree, though I did have similar concerns.
I agree with you but I’m not quite sure about the bill though…
Indians are corrupt, period…We also know that power and money are addictive and have a habit of corrupting even honest people…If the Jan Lokpal bill is passed and a body consisting of honest (supposedly) civil activists comes into existence, what guarantee is there that the members will remain honest and objective especially since they will not be answerable to anyone? Who will keep tract of the body?
In reply to Sraboney
We’ll need to have measures in place to prevent that of course – one way is to have complete transparency in the process of selection and prosecution.
The other way of looking at it is that we already have many powerful independent bodies who by and large do a great job of protecting the public interest – the judiciary, the Election commission, and the RBI are just a few examples. It’s only when agencies are subordinate to the govt. like the police and the CBI that things go wrong.
Finally, the govt. itself has a motive in keeping independent bodies honest. The more agencies we have fighting each other the better for us, the public. It’s only when they collude that bad things happen.
Your point is very important. I agree; a hunger strike is a democratic tool. An elected government only responds if it knows it needs to.
The questions I have are more to do with the Lokpal Bill. There is an interesting discussion going on at Kafila regarding that. First a critique of the Bill and the movement–followed by 300+ comments:
http://kafila.org/2011/04/09/at-the-risk-of-heresy-why-i-am-not-celebrating-with-anna-hazare/
then a response–followed by 60+ comments:
http://kafila.org/2011/04/10/anna-hazare-democracy-and-politics-a-response-to-shuddhabrata-sengupta/
There are other related posts up there as well. Worth looking at as this moves forward.
In reply to hari batti
Interesting article Hari. But I think everyone is forgetting one factor – the judiciary. The Indian constitution guarantees everyone a fair trial and so on and so forth. Even if a draconian bill is implemented, there’s no way the Supreme Court will sit quiet.
And let’s also not forget that 8 out of the 10 members of the committee for the bill are lawyers…
Yeah, I completely agree with you in this regard. Government agreed to the demands just only ‘coz of the on-going elections in 4 states. The biggest example of government ignorance is how the government have paid no heed whatsoever to the demand of a woman going on fast since 11 long years against the atrocities of Indian Army in North East, especially Assam. And, truly Hazaare Saheb straightened the democracy. It was the second biggest revolution in free India after the JP movement. I read few editorials in dailies charging Hazaare Saheb of weakening the democracy and blackmailing the elected members. But quite surprisingly all those editorials were written by bureaucrats or some government officials who would be most affected by passing of any law like the Ombudsmen.
In reply to RACHIT SHARMA
People who criticize Hazare don’t understand what it means to “force” someone. It’s not the same as pressurizing which is perfectly ok.
I think the moot differencce between hazare and all other so called gandhigri demonstrators was that there seemed to be no vested political gain behind his action-which is why the public resonated with him and the Govt had to give in
I find the way people are banding against Hazare’s movement very interesting. And by people, I mean the ‘intellectuals’ from all parts of society – NGOs, government, journalists, et al. I guess most people are a bit shaken from this unprecedented response of a frustrated people and are trying to keep their kursi safe as well.
I completely agree – was trying to make this point too, your post’s clarity was missing in mine!
Did you see P. Sainath’s interpretation of the Jan Lokpal Bill itself? Am going to get educated on the two versions….there seems to be enough to be worried about in both. I just went with the newspaper version and interviews with the activists so far.
You know Bhagwad, Hazare is doing something that needs to be done but I am not in agreement with how it is being done…As far as I know, the committee will have representatives of the government and civil society (an euphemism for Hazare’s team) but no representatives of the opposition, which does not make sense if both Hazare and the government want the bill passed in parliament…The manner in which the panel is being formed means that members chosen randomly by Hazare will get precedence over MPs elected by the people… This is bad in principle…Also, by not allowing members of the opposition to be represented on the panel, the movement will be seen as being aligned to the present government which is not good politics for Hazare’s movement but good politics for the government as it will be seen as against corruption and the opposition as for corruption if they create hurdles in the enactment of the bill…
In reply to Sraboney
This point was raised by the opposition as well. The govt’s stand is that the opposition will get its chance to debate the bill in parliament when it’s presented. As far as I know, this is the procedure for all bills. First a draft prepared solely by the govt., then it has to pass the union cabinet (again only the govt.) and only then is it presented in the lok sabha where it’s thrown open to debate.
Hi Bhagwad
I only partially agree with you. I agree that Hazare didn’t inconvenience the public as such and he was well within his freedom to starve himself to death.
I don’t agree with you, however, that he didn’t force the government into submission. That option that you mentioned the government had was much like the famous offer Mario Puzo’s Godfather made – not really an option!
Yet, that’s not where I would stop in my criticism of his approach. My biggest criticism of his approach is that it’s never a sustainable approach. You can’t throw a few tantrums and change the system. And as a result, we saw what we got out of this “fight against corruption” – a group hug between Hazare’s committee and the government. Business as usual.
A fight against corruption requires a sustained argument against an ideology that breeds corruption. You can’t change the system by bringing someone to their knees. You can change the system by convincing the larger “public” of the advantages of an alternative system.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
I think we must draw a distinction between using force (like the Godfather’s favorite line) and applying pressure.
So when the godfather threatened to kill someone, it was an external application of force which the poor victim had no choice but to accept. That was illegal.
A govt. on the other hand can be legitimately killed by the people by voting them out of power. And in the end, that is what Hazare threatened to do. He threatened the party that they would be legitimately killed by the people unless they accepted his demands.
I think that’s one of the most democratic ways of going about things.
I think we certainly need to fight corruption on many different levels. I see no harm in what Hazare is trying to do. Historically, independent bodies like the Judiciary and the Election commission have done a great job in keeping things under control.
Let’s hope the Lokpal does the same.
Bhagwad
A democratic way of doing things is to contest the elections, convince the electorate that your way is better than the alternative and winning enough opinions to be able to form a government. Threatening to kill oneself, or someone else, is not a democratic way of doing things.
Yes there’s a difference between killing oneself and killing others – I don’t see any problem in Hazare wanting to kill himself. Good riddance, I would say. But that should be unconditional. I would’ve accepted him saying that he wanted to kill himself in protest of rising corruption but the moment he puts a condition on changing his mind about kill himself, he’s misusing his freedom to kill himself. Then I don’t see any difference between his way and Godfather’s way.
I admire Gandhi for many things but one thing I absolutely loathe him for is for giving India the idea that it’s okay to blackmail others by throwing such tantrums. It’s cute when children do it occasionally but deplorable when men who should know better do it.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
But a democracy also allows citizens to threaten the govt. by saying – do what we want or we’ll vote you out!
After all, parties bargain for our votes. They promise us this and that. And in the same way, citizens have the right to demand either this or that.
When Hazare went on a fast, it was like saying – “Do this or else see what your fate is in the next elections.”
Suppose Hazare had died…what would have happened? Would govt. have collapsed? No. Would parliament have stopped meeting? No. Would the judiciary have stopped passing verdicts? No.
If any of these had happened, then it would have been real blackmail. Since there was no consequence threatened, it wasn’t blackmail.
It may have looked like illegal blackmail. But in a democracy, people have the legal right to blackmail the govt. by saying – “Accept our demands or face our wrath on the ballot box.”
A hunger strike is a novel way of doing this no doubt. But it’s still perfectly acceptable. Consider this – the govt. has ignored hundreds of hunger strikes in the past. How come those blackmails didn’t work? This shows that a hunger strike by itself is a pretty weak instrument.
The govt. will happily let people die if they can get away with it (meaning not be too badly affected in the elections.)
In reply to bhagwad
Yes you are absolutely right about it but only partially. If “do what we want or else we will vote you out” was Hazare’s mantra, then he should have contested the elections, made his point to the voters, earned their backing and formed a government that could then implement whatever bills he thinks it should implement. That’s the only way for a healthy democracy to function.
But I think I have failed to make you see the point and I will accept that. I probably didn’t argue it as well as I should have. That doesn’t mean that I will sit on a hunger strike till you accept my argument :)
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
I don’t think the role of a citizen in a democracy begins and ends with the vote. The vote is just one means by which governments are kept in check.
But this is really a moot point. Do you think Hazare did something illegal? If not, then how can a legal act undermine democracy? It’s a contradiction in terms. Is there any other example of legal acts having the same effect?
In reply to bhagwad
The role of a citizen in a democracy doesn’t begin and end with simply casting his/her vote. The role of a citizen in a democracy is to actively participate in the political process. Resorting to melodrama, however, isn’t political process.
As a matter of fact, whether he did something illegal or not is irrelevant. You don’t have to resort to illegal activities to undermine democracy. Not casting your vote, for instance, is undermining democracy and that’s not illegal.
What the Tea Party is doing in the US is a great example of following a democratic process. They bitterly oppose the healthcare reforms, the tax reforms etc. and would love to see them abolished tomorrow. What do they do? Build an argument, run a campaign, participate in the elections, win those elections and then block those bills in the senate.
That’s democracy for me. Not some childish tantrum of not eating food etc. What stops Hazare from contesting elections? He’s now the UNELECTED representative of the people and will decide who gets to sit on the drafting committee. Democratic? Hardly.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
The political process is still being followed. The committee is sitting on a draft of the final bill which then has to be passed by both the union cabinet and the house. Apart from that, its provisions have to pass muster with the Supreme Court which will strike down any unconstitutional provisions.
Nowhere in the texts of political process does it say that a draft of a bill has to be written only by politicians. It can be passed only by them, but the draft itself can come into being in any manner possible.
Though Hazare is formally unelected, he’s already elected in principle – the proof of that is that the Indian govt. caved in rather than ignoring him…just like it normally ignores fasts to death. The spirit of democracy is well preserved. People were behind Hazare and the govt. knew it.
I’m not saying that the Tea party for example is doing the wrong thing. Just that there are other ways of doing it too.
In reply to bhagwad
Well if the “people were behind him” is the yardstick of democracy, then we shouldn’t even have elections every 5 years. Let’s just make Sachin Tendular or Shahrukh Khan the PM. Clearly, they have more following than any prime minister ever had.
I am sorry Bhagwad but I must say that you are demonstrating a very poor grasp of the idea of democracy. Democracy is so much more than anti-establishment populism. If that’s what democracy is, then Hazare could learn a lesson or two in democracy from the Egyptians and Libyans.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
There’s more truth than you know in your jibe about Sachin. In Tamil Nadu for example, the last three chief ministers have been movie stars and so many politicians in India are actors. So there’s nothing wrong with that.
The idea of democracy is an evolving one. It’s not a set system of rules. Each country has its own version of democracy to suit its needs. It’s a question of whether or not a certain action goes against the spirit of democracy.
The idea is not to have a checklist to see if we fit a particular set of rules about how democracy is supposed to work and get an ISO certification!
In reply to bhagwad
There’s a speakers’ corner here in Hyde Park, London where anyone can stand up and make an argument in front of anyone who cares to stand and listen. The speakers and their audiences have spirited debates on issues ranging from politics to spirituality. I admire that place as a bedrock of British democracy.
I guess “India is different” and instead of a speakers’ corner, we could have a “fasters’ corner” at Jantar mantar where anyone could sit on a dharna and demand anything s/he pleases. What the heck! Nothing works in India and sab chalta hai anyway.
That “the idea of democracy is evolving one” and “democracy doesn’t follow a certain set of rules” are the two most insane arguments I’ve heard so far from you. I am practically agitated now with this conversation and would not like to comment on this further.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
That would be novel :) Nothing wrong with having a “faster’s corner.” If the cause is good people will rally around!
I don’t know why it’s hard for you to accept that democracy is an evolving idea. I’m not saying we should throw everything out. Or that the spirit of democracy is bad. It’s a fact that different countries have very different systems of democracy. So isn’t it obvious that there’s no standard set of rules? Britain, the US, Sweden all have slightly different forms.
Who gave democracy its meaning? We humans. Not god. Not scientists. We the people gave it meaning.
Incidentally, we’re not even talking about changing the system. What happened in India can well happen in the US or Britain as well. And if sufficient people were behind it, the govt. would cave just like it did in India – because it makes political sense.
And that’s the crux of the issue. The govt. caved because it was good politics. And isn’t that what you want? A political reason?
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
Hmm now that I think of it, we unnecessarily made our Cricket players toil under the sun. If we had only understood this new “idea” of democracy, I am sure one of us would have definitely volunteered to fast unto death to demand that the world cup be given to India. I am sure millions would have supported our cause and together we could have brought the ICC “to its knees” to concede to our demands.
Would’ve been a genuine “people’s victory” that!
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
After all, every Cricketing nation should have its own way of winning the world cup, right? Some teams play hard and fair to win it, but who’s to say that’s the only way? We are India and we have to have our own way of doing things, eh?
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
Come Ashish, let’s not be facetious. The ICC isn’t a democracy…neither is the judiciary or any other body. Only the govt will listen. Not because it has to, but because it wants to preserve itself in the next elections.
Keep in mind that any action by the govt. (or the govt/civil unions) can be circumscribed by the Supreme court if the provisions run counter to the constitution, the basic structure of which can never be changed.
And that’s because India is strictly speaking a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
Sure, we can have our own rules and our “own” world cup. But then no one else will play with us :)
I’m not able to get your point exactly.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
“But then no one else will play with us :)”
Precisely my point. I would like to reason and debate with Hazare his proposed solution but if all the man could do is stop eating until his way is accepted, then I won’t be able to argue with him.
Democracy thrives on debate, argument and “I-will-starve-myself-to-death-if-my-demands-are-not-met” is not an argument.
But I sense we are going round and round the same point. Let’s just say you will go with the guy who could torture himself most and I will go with the guy who has a better argument to make and who can make it well.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
If Hazare had simply said “This bill will go through as is with no amendments,” the govt. would have indeed let him starve himself to death.
He and his supporters were very clear that they wanted a committee to discuss the bill and argue out the provisions – exactly as they are doing right now.
In a sense, Hazare was fasting for the right to argue and discuss. Not to get his version approved without debate.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
“In a sense, Hazare was fasting for the right to argue and discuss.”
LOL. I accept my defeat. Got better things to do now. Ciao.