Book Review: Manindra Nath Thakur and Dhananjay Rai,eds,Democracy on the Move? Reflections on Moments,Promises and Contradictions

Few events/processes in recent Indian political history have evoked such interest and generated such widely divergent responses as the ‘anti-corruption’/Jan Lokpal mobilization under the ‘leadership of Anna Hazare’. It is also worth underscoring that all those ‘caught up’ in the Anna fever were inordinately passionate about it—whether in support or against. It was almost as if the mobilization/upsurge, and even more its coverage by the mass media, squeezed out any likelihood of a measured response, a middle ground. Equally intriguingly, the ‘frenzy’ created by the upsurge seems, in just a couple of years, to have died out. It is therefore worth reflecting about why so few now hark back to the Anna moment, and this includes those who subsequently got involved with the Aam Aadmi Party.

Nevertheless, even those critical of (possibly even disturbed by) the buzz around the mobilization and its demands would concede that it did appear that there was a magical quality about the mobilization. The heady days of the dharna/fast at Jantar Mantar and subsequently the Ramlila Grounds in Delhi in 2012 seemed to evoke memories of the dying days of the Emergency in 1977. The ‘rapturous’ crowds that once gathered to hear Anna Hazare and associates, much in the manner that crowds had gathered to listen to the anti-Emergency stalwarts just days before the 1977 elections, generated a rare expectation of a new and different kind of politics. It is another matter that like in the past these expectations too were belied.

Now that the moment has passed, it becomes possible to have a less hysterical discussion about what the phenomenon represented, to whom and why. The book under review, a collection of 12 articles and 9 interviews/conversations, jointly edited by Manindra Thakur and Dhananjay Rai, attempts precisely that. Unsurprisingly, most of the essays are quite critical, sceptical if not dismissive, about the claims advanced by the followers/participants in the India Against Corruption (IAC) mobilizations. It is interesting that the editors consistently use the word mobilization, rather than movement or even agitation, to describe the process, possibly pointing to the absence of strategy and vision behind the upsurge. This should not be interpreted as implying an absence of planning; merely that the leadership of the IAC seemed unclear as to their longer-term objectives.

Manoranjan Mohanty highlights the middle-class character of the Hazare campaign. It is this which came in the way of generating enthusiasm among the workers, dalits, adivasis and minorities. He is also critical of the tendency that reduced the campaign to primarily a demand for a new anti-corruption legislation. This refrain is further strengthened by Manoj Jha, who insists that ‘the Anna phenomenon was never a democratic movement’ and basically served to strengthen the prevailing anti-politician/ anti-politics sentiment. Vivek Kumar too characterizes the Hazare phenomenon as ‘unrepresentative’ and ‘promoting hero worship’. Ajay Gudavarthy points to the restricted understanding of corruption (silence on corporate corruption) in the entire IAC discourse. Similarly, Anand Teltumbde charges the Hazare-led mobilization of strengthening forces of neoliberalism. In short, unlike the enthusiastic reception given to the Anna Hazare mobilizations in the popular media, these essays paint a less flattering, if not disturbing, picture, reminding us of the danger of uncritical appreciation.

The articles by M.P. Singh (on the possible role of direct democracy/referendum in a parliamentary system) or Atul Mishra on the strategy of drawing upon ‘traditional’ conceptions of justice, equality and dharma as a way to critique modern, Western precepts, raise a different set of concerns. Harish Wankhade, in invoking an Ambedkarite legacy, questions the entire symbolization of the Hazare phenomenon— specifically the attempt to appropriate Gandhi. Finally, Sukumar Muralidharan unravels the role of the mass media, both print and TV, in amplifying the anti-corruption upsurge, thereby investing in it a far greater importance than it deserved. As an aside, it is worth remembering that the Maharashtra press (English, Hindi, Urdu and Marathi) more or less ignored the IAC. Possibly, being more familiar with the various ventures of Hazare, including his anti-corruption campaigns at the state level which had resulted in the resignation of a few ministers, they refused to be caught up in the hysteria so emblematic of the Delhi media.

Overall then the Hazare phenomenon, even if it has lost its sheen and receded from public memory, leaves behind a whole range of troubling questions. Why did this upsurge occupy centre stage for as long as it did? Equally, given the turbulence it generated, why did it vanish so fast? There is little doubt that the IAC mobilizations attracted a large number of first-timers in the public arena. But in the absence of any strategy of engaging with the volunteers in a manner that would deepen their involvement in and knowledge of politics, it was unable to build on the enthusiasm and eventually only deepened the mood of cynicism about politics. To state sharply, Hazare and company were successful in further delegitimizing an already tottering UPA-II regime. But whether they also contributed to the eventual success of Narendra Modi is less certain.