On his journey back home, after a five-day overseas trip that took him to China and Kazakhstan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a significant observation about Anna Hazare, the man whose fast-unto-death agitation had forced the government to go on the back foot. Mr Hazare ended his fast only after the Manmohan Singh government issued a notification to set up a joint committee to draft a new Lok Pal Bill to tackle corruption in high offices.
Asked about his views on Hazare, Dr Singh said, “I respect him as an important leader, who had done a lot of good work in rural development and that’s why the whole country respects him.” These were carefully chosen words. There was no mention of his movement against corruption or his agitation for the Lok Pal Bill. All that the prime minister seemed willing to acknowledge was Hazare’s role in rural development. That description also sums up the way Indian politicians would like to view Hazare — not as a crusader against corruption, but as someone who created a self-sufficient model village in Maharashtra.
If Hazare were to identify his biggest challenge today, it would be the acceptance by the politicians as a crusader against corruption. Politicians will allow him to do whatever developmental work he can undertake in villages or even towns. But the moment Hazare acquires the aura of a man who launched a movement against corruption in high offices, the Indian politician will do everything possible to deny him that role. For, conceding that role to him will create several other complications for the system in which the politicians may no longer feel safe and secure.
Ironically, Hazare has hardly realised the enormity of this challenge. If Hazare had held his fast in any city other than New Delhi, he would not have created the kind of impact he eventually made on everyone. His decision to hold the fast in New Delhi was a masterstroke, just as his failure to make advance preparations to face up to the power and influence of the politicians will prove to be an expensive mistake. To some extent, this is borne out by the kind of statements Hazare has reportedly made after he acquired the status of a national hero.
He made three statements that instantly became controversial. One, he said if his fast-unto-death was seen as an attempt to blackmail the government, he would not hesitate to do it again. This immediately re-ignited the debate over the legitimacy of such agitation in a democracy and against an elected government. Although the agitation was for a just cause, the goal that it sought to achieve was not beyond dispute. Yes, the government must end corruption, but whether the creation of a Lok Pal is the right answer is not clear. In such a situation, a fast-unto-death demanding the creation of a Lok Pal amounts to a coercive move forcing a democratically elected government to opt for a certain course of action.
Two, Hazare said he would never win an election in India because he did not have enough black money required to win votes. It is true that many politicians use black money to buy votes in Indian elections, but can Hazare make a sweeping statement that shows utter disrespect to the Indian voters? Indian voters, in general, have behaved most maturely, irrespective of whether politicians bribed them or not. They have changed governments at the Centre and in states at regular intervals and, mostly, they have shown the door to non-performing governments. Was Hazare being fair in describing the Indian voters in such derogatory terms?
Three, he said if the Lok Pal Bill failed to get Parliament’s nod, he would accept that verdict and that he was flexible on the August 15 deadline for approving the Bill. Subsequently, however, Hazare’s associates have modified both the statements. The changed stance has confounded the ordinary Indians, who saw his earlier statement on heeding Parliament’s verdict as a sign of maturity and respect for democracy. However, it is not clear whether Hazare himself issued any such denial. What we know clearly is that Hazare has appealed to the Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, to restrain the politicians from spreading misinformation about him and his movement. Why he would not issue such an appeal to the prime minister of the country is, of course, a bit puzzling. Does it show he is too naive? Or does this point to his thinking on who is more effective and powerful in restraining the Congress politicians?
Either way, Hazare shows a complete lack of preparedness to deal with his new-found national status of a crusader against corruption. Politicians, particularly those belonging to the ruling party, see in this lack of preparation a big opportunity to cause Hazare more embarrassment and confuse people. The Hazare aura can be short-lived, if he continues to make statements that make him look like someone who is trying to be above the system. Corruption is a real issue, but fighting it requires democratic methods to make the rules more transparent and the system more robust — not threats that defy the logic of democracy.
