The hollow claims of the anti-corruption campaign
|
COMMENTS 
An activist explores the reasons for her discomfort with the Anna Hazare ‘movement’ which only ended up externalising corruption and glossing over the structural inequalities that perpetuate it
Anna Hazare breaks his fast after 13 days and media attention will now focus on what will happen next in the parliamentary committee that is examining the Lokpal Bill. However, what happened in those 13 days bears greater reflection, especially around the people who participated in the ‘movement’, their stand, and their response. As a member of Indian civil society and a citizen of India, the nationalistic colour of the ‘protest’ against corruption leaves me quite disturbed. Who, really, were protesting in this campaign against corruption, what were they protesting, what do they never protest against, and, most importantly, who was leading and steering it?
I consciously chose not to stand with the protesting masses, which had gone to the extent of calling everyone who is not with Anna, ‘anti-India’, ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘selfish’. I consciously chose not to support a protest which I feel is based on arrogance, an individualistic interpretation of democracy and which reflects only the dominant and mainstream perspective. This does not mean however that I am for corruption or that this is not the right time to address it. It is important to influence government, make them accountable, protest and demand a corruption-free society. But how should this be done, and by whom?
India’s social, political and economic structures do not offer a level playing field to different groups; the fragmentation is historic and ongoing, and it was exhibited during this protest as well. India is still a country with the largest number of poor and excluded in the world, with one of the lowest sex ratios, where sexual violence against women and girls is increasing, which ranks 67 on the hunger index, which has one of the lowest literacy rates and highest number of children suffering from malnutrition… the list goes on.
Why have these protesting crowds never gathered, if not in the thousands then even in the hundreds, to protest these issues? Does the middle class only come out on the streets to support a ‘cause’ which has an immediate impact on them, their immediate family and friends? Child labour exists in their homes, more sex-selective abortions are performed by the middle and upper middle classes of India (prosperous south Delhi has the lowest sex ratio in the country), they let displacement happen for their malls, highways, specialty homes, dams, etc. Will they give a medical allowance to their poor maids and drivers, let alone giving them just wages? How would this crowd react if a social reformer asked them to stand up against caste and patriarchy, which is the basis of the inequality existing in India? Will this crowd come out in such numbers to protest the impunity granted to the perpetrators of Khairlanji?
In Manipur, Irom Sharmila has been on a hunger strike for more than 10 years, demanding a repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 (AFSPA). The armed forces have been infamous for human rights violations in Manipur. Rojesh Sharma, a close aide of Irom Sharmila, says: “She tried to take our fight to New Delhi by staging protests at Jantar Mantar but did not get support from the nation as AFSPA only affects the northeast and Jammu and Kashmir.”
Individual demands are, of course, valid, and it is our right to question anything that concerns us and our loved ones. But my discomfort stems from the fact that People Like Us (PLU) protest only what is against our own interests. Was this protest really a “movement driven by patriotism” then? How do these protesters define patriotism? Surely patriotism must transcend affiliation with geography and move to a country’s people?
When looked at squarely, is this protest really against corruption? It seems to be talking only about a Bill, without touching upon the structural reasons behind corruption and ways to address it, beyond legislative tools. A complex issue has been simplified into this campaign for a Jan Lokpal Bill. Most of the protestors didn’t even know what the provisions of the different Bills are, and why one should be supported over another.
Didn’t Team Anna think it necessary to broadbase their campaign at all? Surely they are aware that legislation alone will not solve a problem that both government and larger society are party to? The PCPNDT Act came into force in 1994. This is 2011, and the sex ratio is much lower than in the last decade. Until we touch upon the structural issues of social hierarchies and concentration of power in a few hands we will not be able to gain much by progressive legislative tools. Should we not be looking at the existing mechanisms against corruption and demanding a strengthening of those institutions?
Moreover, Anna Hazare is talking about accountability and transparency when in his own “model” village a code of conduct developed by Anna Hazare prevails and if anyone transgresses it (by drinking alcohol, for instance), the person gets flogged. I am uncomfortable about blindly following a person who has upheld the patriarchal and caste codes in his own surroundings. Not to mention, never demanded an election for his panchayat in the last 25 years. Gandhiji would never ask people to do something that he himself would not strictly follow. Gandhi believed in decentralisation and here the negotiation is being done by a few members, not even representative of diverse Indian society. We have seen how unreceptive Team Anna is to consultative processes or divergent views.
In this protest, corruption is being externalised, as though it is someone else’s fault and ‘I’ am not a party to it. The media is taking the high moral ground even after they have been implicated in corruption themselves. We need to reflect on how corruption is being defined in the current scenario. Is it just the taking and giving of a bribe? Or is it broader than that? If so, who is implicated in it? Is it only the government and politicians? Team Anna has certainly narrowed it down to only government. How about the media, corporations and the larger society which equally participates in corruption? How are we going to address that? Is there going to be another Bill for these players as well? If we plan to build a movement for a corruption-free society, we need answers to all these questions.
(Ayesha Pervez works on dalit and other human rights issues with ChristianAid, New Delhi)
Infochange News & Features, September 2011