Saturday April 09, 2011 10:10:31 PM, Shuddhabrata Sengupta
At the risk of heresy, let me express my profound unease at the
crescendo of euphoria surrounding the 'Anna Hazare + Jan Lokpal Bill'
phenomenon as it has unfolded on Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and across
several hysterical TV stations over the last few days.
This time around, I have to say that the print media has acted (upto
now) with a degree of restraint that I think is commendable. Partly,
this has to do with the different natures of the two media. If you
have to write even five hundred words about the Jan Lokpal bill, you
run out of platitudes against corruption in the first sentence (and
who can speak 'for' corruption anyway?) and after that you have to
begin thinking about what the bill actually says, and the moment you
do that, you cannot but help consider the actual provisions and their
implications. On television on the other hand, you never have to speak
for more than a sound-byte, (and the anchor can just keep repeating
himself or herself, because that is the anchor's job) and the
accumulation of pious vox-pop sound bytes 'against corruption' leads
to a tsunami of 'sentiment' that brooks no dissent.
Between the last NDA government and the current UPA government, we
have probably experienced a continuity of the most intense degree of
corruption that this country has ever witnessed. The outcome of the
'Anna Hazare' phenomenon allows the ruling Congress to appear gracious
(by bending to Anna Hazar's will) and the BJP to appear pious (by
cozying up to the Anna Hazare initiative) and a full spectrum of NGO
and 'civil society' worthies to appear, as always, even holier than
they already are.
Most importantly, it enables the current ruling elite to have just
stage managed its own triumph, by crafting a 'sensitive' response
(ably deployed by Kapil Sibal) to a television media conjured popular
upsurge. Meanwhile, the electronic media, by and large, have played
their part by offering us the masquerade of a 'revolution' – that ends
up making the state even more powerful than it was before this so
called 'revolution' began. Some people in the corridors of power must
be delighted at the smoothness and economy with which all this has
been achieved. Hosni Mubarak should have taken a few lessons from the
Indian ruling class about how to have your cake and eat it too on
Tahrir Square,
We have been here before. Indira Gandhi's early years were full of
radical and populist posturing, and the mould that Anna Hazare fills
is not necessarily the one that JP occupied (despite the commentary
that repeatedly invokes JP). Perhaps we should be reminded of the man
who was fondly spoken of as 'Sarkari Sant' – Vinoba Bhave. Bhave lent
his considerable moral stature to the defence of the Internal
Emergency (which, of course, dressed itself up in the colour of anti-
corruption, anti-black marketeering rhetoric, to neutralize the anti-
corruption thrust of the disaffection against Indira Gandhi's regime).
And while we are thinking about parallels in other times, let us not
forget a parallel in another time and another place. Let us not forget
the example of how Mao's helmsmanship of the 'cultural revolution'
skilfully orchestrated popular discontent against the ruling
dispensation to strengthen the same ruling dispensation in China.
These are early days, but Anna Hazare may finally go down in history
as the man who - perhaps against his own instincts and interests – (I
am not disputing his moral uprightness here) - sanctified the entire
spectrum of Indian politics by offering it the cosmetic cloak of the
provisions of the draft Jan Lokpal Bill. The current UPA regime, like
the NDA regime before it, has perfected the art of being the designer
of its own opposition. The method is brilliant and imaginative. First,
preside over profound corruption, then, utilise the public discontent
against corruption to create a situation where the ruling dispensation
can be seen as the source of the most sympathetic and sensitive
response, while doing nothing, simultaneously, to challenge the abuse
of power at a structural level.
I have studied the draft Jan Lokpal Bill carefully and I find some of
its features are deeply disturbing. I want to take some time to think
through why this appears disturbing to me.
The draft Jan Lokpal bill (as present on the website of
Indiaagainstcorruption.org) foresees a Lokpal who will become one of
the most powerful institutions of state that India has ever known. It
will combine in itself the powers of making law, implementing the law,
and punishing those who break the law. A lokpal will be 'deemed a
police officer' and can 'While investigating any offence under
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, they shall be competent to
investigate any offence under any other law in the same case.'
The appointment of the Lokpal will be done by a collegium consisting
of several different kinds of people – Bharat Ratna awardees, Nobel
prize winners of Indian origin, Magasaysay award winners, Senior
Judges of Supreme and High Courts, The Chairperson of the National
Human Rights Commission, The Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
The Chief Election Commissioner, and members of the outgoing Lokpal
board and the Chairpersons of both houses of Parliament. It may be
noticed that in this entire body, only one person, the chairperson of
the Lok Sabha, is a democratically elected person. No other person on
this panel is accountable to the public in any way. As for 'Nobel
Prize Winners of Indian Origin' they need not even be Indian citizens.
The removal of the Lokpal from office is also not something amenable
to a democratic process. Complaints will be investigated by a panel of
supreme court judges.
This is middle class India's dream of subverting the 'messiness' of
democracy come delightfully true. So, now you have to imagine that
Lata Mangeshkar (who is a Bharat Ratna), APJ Abul Kalam (Bharat Ratna,
ex-President and Nuclear Weapons Hawk) V.S. Naipaul (Who is a Nobel
Prize Winner of Indian Origin) and spectrum of the kinds of people who
take their morning walks in Lodhi Garden – Supreme Court Judges,
Election Commissioners, Comptroller & Auditor Generals, NHRC chiefs
and Rajya Sabha chairmen will basically elect the person who will run
what may well become the most powerful institution in India.
This is a classic case of a priviledged elite selecting how it will
run its show without any restraint. It sets the precedent for the
making of an un accountable 'council of guardians' something like the
institution of the 'Velayat e Faqih' – a self-selected body of clerics
– in Iran who act as a super-state body, unrestrained by any
democratic norms or procedures. I do not understand what qualifies
Lata Mangeshkar and V.S. Naipaul (whose deeply reactionary views are
well known) to take decisions about the future of all those who live
in india.
The setting up of the institution of the Lokpal (as it is envisioned
in what is held out as the draft Jan Lokpal Bill) needs to be seen,
not as the deepening, but as the profound erosion of democracy.
I respect the sentiment that brings a large number of people out in
support of the Jan Lokpal Bill movement. but I do not think there has
been enough thought given to the implications of the provisions that
it seeks to make into law. In these circumstances, one would have
ordinarily expected the media to have played a responsible role by
acting as a platform for debate and discussion about the issues, so
that we can move, as a society, towards a better and more nuanced law.
Instead, the electronic media have killed the possibility of any
substantive discussion by creating a spectacle. It is absolutely
imperative that this space be reclaimed by those who are genuinely
interested in a serious discussion about what corruption represents in
our society and in our political culture.
Clearly, there is a popular rage, (and not confined to earnest middle
class people alone) about the helplessness that corruption engenders
around us. But we have to ask very carefully whether this bill
actually addresses the structural issues that cause corruption. In
setting up a super-state body, that is almost self selecting and
virtually unaccountable, it may in fact laying the foundations of an
even more intense concentration of power. And as should be clear to
all of us by now, nothing fosters corruption as much as the
concentration of unaccountable and unrestrained power.
I am not arguing against the provision of an institution of a Lokpal,
or Ombudsman, (and some of the provisions even in this draft bill –
such as the provision of protection for whistle-blowers, are indeed
commendable) but if we want to take this institution seriously, within
a democratic political culture, we have to ask whether the methods of
initiating and concluding the term of office of the Lokpal conforms to
democratic norms or not. There are many models of selecting Ombudsmen
available across the world, but I have never come across a situation
where a country decides that Nobel Prize winners and those awarded
with state conferred honours can be entrusted with the task selecting
those entrusted with the power to punish people. I have also never
come across the merging of the roles of investigator, judge and
prosecutor within one office being hailed as the triumph of democratic
values.
Nothing serves power better than the spectacle of resistance. The last
few days have witnessed an unprecedented choregraphy of the spectacle
of a united action. As I type this, I am watching visuals on Times
Now, where a crescendo of cheezy 'inspirational' music strings
together a montage of flag-waving children speaking in hypnotic
unison. This kind of unison scares me. It reminds me of the happy
synchronized calisthenics of the kind that totalitarian regimes love
to use to produce the figure of their subjects. And all fascist
regimes begin by sounding the tocsin of 'cleansing' society of
corruption and evil.
When four Bombay page three worthies, Rishi Kapoor, Prithwish Nandy,
Anupam Kher, Anil Dharker conduct a shrill inquisition (as they did on
the Newshour on Times Now) against two co-panelists, Meenakshi Lekhi
and Hartosh Singh Bal simply because they were not sounding 'cheerful
and celebratory' (Anupam Kher even disapproved of their 'body
posture') I begin to get really worried. The day we feel self-
conscious and inhibited about expressing even non-verbally, or
silently, our disappointment in public about a public issue, is the
day when we know that authoritarian values have taken a firm hold on
public discourse.
Of course, there are other reasons to get worried. All we need now is
for someone, say like Baba Ramdev (one of the worthies behind Anna
Hazare's current campaign) to go on a fast on Jantar Mantar in support
of some draconian and reactionary measure dear to him, backed by
thousands of pious, earnest television supported, pranayamic middle
class supporters.
Having said this, lets also pause to consider that Its not as if
others have not been on hunger strikes before – Irom Sharmila has been
force fed for several years now – but I do not see her intransigence
being translated into a tele-visually orchestrated campaign against
the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The impunity that AFSPA breeds is
nothing short of a corruption that eats deep into the culture of
democracy, and yet, here, moral courage, and the refusal to eat, does
not seem to work.
The current euphoria needs to be seen for what it is – a massive move
towards legitimizing a strategy of simple emotional blackmail – a
(conveniently reversible) method of suicide bombing in slow motion.
There is no use dissenting against a pious worthy on a fast, because
any effort to dissent will be immediately read as a callous
indifference to his/her 'sacrifice' by the moral-earnestness brigade.
Nothing can be more dangerous for democracy.Unrestrained debate and a
fealty to accountable processes are the only means by which a
democratic culture can sustain itself. The force of violence, whether
it is inflicted on others, or on the self, or held out as a
performance, can only act coercively. And coercion can never nourish
democracy.
Finally, if, as a society, we were serious about combating the
political nexus that sustains corruption – we would be thinking
seriously about extending the provisions of the Right to Information
Act to the areas where it can not currently operate – national
security and defence; we would also think seriously about electoral
reform – about proportional representation, about smaller
constituencies, about strengthening local representative bodies, about
the provision of uniform public funding for candidates and about the
right to recall elected representatives. These are serious questions.
The tragedy that we are facing today is that the legitimate public
outrage against corruption is being channeled in a profoundly
authoritarian direction that actually succeeds in creating a massive
distraction.
In all the noise there has been a lot of talk about cynicism, and
anyone who has expressed the faintest doubt has been branded as a
cynic. I do not see every expression of doubt in this context as
cynicism, though some may be. Instead, I see the fact that those who
often cry hoarse about 'democratic values' seem to be turning a blind
eye to the authoritarian strains within this draft 'Jan Lokpal Bill'
as a clear indication of how powerful the politics of cynicism
actually is.
I hope that eventually, once the din subsides, better sense will
prevail, and we can all begin to think seriously, un-cynically about
what can actually be done to combat the abuse and concentration of
power in our society.
Allow me to pick and choose my revolutions. I am not celebrating at
Jantar Manta tonight. Good night.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.