The movement for creation of institution of Lokpal, spearheahed by an infant organization named India Against Corruption or popularly known as Team Anna, has provoked most of the sections in the Indian society to react and position themselves vis-à-vis this movement. This is the third wave of mass discontent against ‘establishment’ in independent India. The first instance was Jayprakash Narain’s popular movement against the Congress Party’s government at the centre and its various state governments in the decade of 1970s. The second momentum was V.P. Singh’s courageous decision to take on Rajiv Gandhi’s government; in which he served as Foreign Minister, Finance Minister and Defence Minister at one point of time or the other, on the issue of kickbacks in purchasing of Bofors guns for Indian Army. All the three waves of mass discontent at the national level emerged focusing on issues of corruption at the high offices, while rising inflation added fuel to the people’s anger.
First Wave of Mass Discontent
The J.P. movement that began against corruption at high places turned into movement for restoration of democracy in India once the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi clamped national emergency in 1975 citing internal disturbances as the main cause. This movement was a combination of: right-wing Congress factions who unsuccessfully challenged Indira Gandhi’s leadership and were eventually thrown out of the Congress Party; the land lords and upper strata of social forces that earlier formed the Swantra Party championing free economy; the Jan Sangh backed by the Rashtriya Swaymsevak Sangh (RSS) that has been seeking alteration of Indian polity on ultra-nationalist ideology; the socialist followers of Ram Manohar Lohia; and not the least – the party-less Jayprakash Narain riding high on the shoulders of thousands of idealist youth who wanted to make India an egalitarian and inclusive society. A significant section of the Left, particularly Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], overtly took anti-Congress position after commencement of emergency arguing subversion of human and democratic rights by the authoritarian regime. Muslims in India, for the first time since independence, and so as sizable sections of Dalit in north and east India disserted ranks of Congress Party. Reason for Muslims was said to be the forceful implementation of sterilization programme during the emergency; and for Dalit it was chance for the popular leader Babu Jagjivan Ram to become the Prime Minister, the social revolution in itself. This movement was also powered by the beneficiaries of green revolution, the rich and middle level farmers most of whom belonged to the intermediate castes in Hindu social hierarchy. It had galvanized India’s east, west and north alike – politically and socially. However, the north-eastern part and northern most state of Jammu and Kashmir had little impact of the national churning. Similarly, the Southern States remained engulfed in their respective dynamics, although it could not remain aloof from the long term repercussions of the electoral defeat of the grand old Congress Party, the first ever since the establishment of the Republic. Although the first wave of mass discontent emerged out of sentiments against the corruption, it has contributed nothing in terms of curbing corruption at high places. On the other hand, its socio-political effects were different and far reaching.
The most important result of 1970s movement has been deepening and widening of consciousness against subversion of democratic institutions in general and of Parliament and elections in particular. The opinion generated against authoritarianism, as vindicated in the 1977 general elections, has been so strong that it had put to rest any speculation of India either going the one-party rule, particularly seen in countries of the then communist block, or the military dictatorship being witnessed in some of the South and South-East Asian countries. A related, and equally important development, was collapse of the myth of invincibility of the Congress Party. The TINA factor, There Is No Alternative, forever disappeared from Indian polity. The second important result was emergence of RSS-backed political force at the power centre. Although, Jan Sangh was merged into Janata Party, its leaders and cadres did not severe ties with RSS and continued to practice their core ideology. The partial taste of power in the form of Janata Party government at the centre enthused confidence among RSS ideologues of possibility of emerging as a key national player in some form or the other and ways of implementing their agenda. Thirdly, the Left, in the form of CPI(M), emerged as a viable force and succeeded in constructing political bastion in one of the most populous states of India – West Bengal. The massive popularity of the Left Front in West Bengal for many years since 1977 had unquestionably its roots in taking up fight against authoritarianism at the Centre and semi-fascistic rule of Congress in the state. Fourth, politically and socially marginalized sections began to assess importance of their vote and also their bargaining power. Realization that weakest of the weak can defeat the strongest political entity, empowered the masses to have larger social implications. It has paved the way for formation of identity based politics, particularly in the vast Hindi heartland. Fifth, and quite different, implication was dissociation of many of the youth, of those inspired by J.P.’s ideology of Total Revolution, from electoral politics. Many of them, in turn, have chosen to work among different communities in poor, rural or remote areas; mostly on the issues of their livelihood and sustainable development that includes education, environment and health. Some others followed their suit in following years, thus, creating an un-ignorable network of voluntary organizations and activists commanding respects among their people.
Second Wave of Mass Discontent
Implications of the second wave of mass discontent in late 1980s have been consolidification of many of the repercussions of the first wave on the one hand; and emergence of complex social, economic and political factors to change the landscape of Indian polity on the other hand. First of all, Congress Party was further weakened. Since then, Congress has been unable to muster simple majority in Lok Sabha elections on its own; and also forced to enter into political coalitions at the centre. Secondly, Jan Sangh’s successor, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), emerged as one of the two largest political parties in India. This emergence has been marked by intense communal divide in society and further political marginalization of Muslims in national politics. Third, as a paradox to rise of Hindu right-wing, social identity based politics has become an important feature of Indian polity. At a policy level, political consensus emerged on providing reservations in jobs and education to historically deprived and marginalized castes and social groups in Hindu society. Fourth, the Left Parties gained importance at the national level as king-maker as 3 of the total 7 Union Governments since 1989 could have been formed with the Left’s outside support. Like the first wave, the right wing BJP, the socialist followers of Lohia and the J.P., the Dalit and Other Backward Castes (OBCs), Muslims and the Left fought against the Congress, although not in unison. During the second wave too, as happened in 1970s, India’s east, west and north further turned away from the Congress. The Southern States, like in 1970s, vacillated but in the longer term non-Congress forces got strengthened including the BJP. The north-east remained largely unaffected; but the state of Jammu and Kashmir, particularly the Kashmir valley, erupted with discontent and anger against the Indian establishment during and in the aftermath of this period; even though there is no overt inter-connectivity between the discontent in the valley and discontent in rest of India.
It is remarkable that most of the social forces and political formations that participated in both the anti-corruption crusades; like the right wing Jan Sangh (and then BJP), the Dalit and OBCs and the Left, consolidated their power bases. In the process, the Swatantra Party elements mostly merged into the BJP and the Lohiaites have been balkanized into social identity groups. On the other hand, Muslims did not gain anything substantially on and after both the occasions and the tribal remained politically voiceless.
It has been argued that the positioning of Lohiaites, Left and Dalit and OBC groups were identical with that of BJP’s during both the waves of mass discontent, resulting into the latter’s gaining of legitimacy in Indian politics. However, right-wing politics, in the form of the BJP, would have gained immensely by capturing the mass discontent against the Congress regimes, particularly on the issues of corruption and inflation, if the other non-Congress forces would not have positioned themselves as they did. For the wide ranging political forces; from ultra right to ultra left to various social groups, discontent against corruption served as a secular issue to fight against the establishment in order to garner support and legitimacy. On the other hand, futility of both the waves to produce concrete mechanism or alter the political-economic system to effectively curb menace of corruption resulted into co-option of opponents of the Congress regime into the establishment or the system. Till 1989 Congress Party was considered as the natural agency to govern and hence, had been identified as establishment. The socio-political developments since second wave of mass discontent shows that the space of Congress as part of establishment has been constantly eroded while the BJP, Left and Dalit and OBC groups/parties have been encroaching into the establishment.
A significant development since the second wave of mass discontent has been pronouncement of economic liberalization in India. A major plank to sell the idea of economic liberalization policy has been the argument that an economic system dominated by the State is bound to be corrupt and inefficient, hence needs to be altered. Government of the politically weak Congress Party during 1991-1996, which was also in the minority in the Lok Sabha, succeeded in firmly introducing neo-liberalization mainly because people, at large, were unwilling to keep on embracing the system against which it had rose twice in the past. In the process, people’s discontent got fragmented into protection and promotion of social and communal identities. As a direct result of it, the secular world-view of progressive movements too got fractured and it had to take up fight against single issues at different places calling itself the people’s movements. Even after the electoral mandate of 2004 and the historic role that the Left parties played at the centre for next 4 years, masses did not rise in action against the neo-liberalization. It is in this context that the third wave of mass discontent erupted in India in 2011.
Third Wave of Mass Discontent
Like the earlier two occasions, third wave of mass discontent has the background of massive government scams and inaction against corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. There are few more commonalities; ever-rising inflation, presence of Congress Government at the centre and Gandhi-Nehru dynasty at the receiving end of the mass discontent. Another striking similarity of all the three momentums has been the backdrop of impressive electoral performances by the Congress Party in the general elections that perpetuated the fear of never ending Gandhi-Nehru dynastic rule over India. Similarities, nonetheless, end here, while the differentiations are strikingly noteworthy.
The first differentiation between earlier two movements and the incumbent movement is the latter’s success in clear articulation of its goal and objectives. The movement focused on creation of an institution of Lokpal through a parliamentary legislation. In fact, no political party or group denied necessity of institution of Lokpal. The differences remained on its structure, role, scope and powers.
The second major differentiation is in the nature of the leadership. In 1970s and in late 1980s, political parties and political leadership were the main agencies and actors mobilizing and leading the masses against the respective incumbent central governments. However, the third wave of mass discontent has been led by non-political entities named Anna Hazare – a social activist who has developed a backward village in Maharashtra on the Gandhian principles; Kiran Bedi – a retired senior officer of Indian Police Services; Arvind Kejariwal – Right to Information activist who had resigned from Indian Revenue Services; Prashant Bhushan – a successful lawyer at the Supreme Court known for his passion for human rights; and Medha Patkar – founder of Narmada Bachao Andolan. None of them had ever contested elections nor been members of any political parties. This movement has not thrown, so far, any significant political figure(s) in sharp contrast to earlier two occasions.
The third differentiation is that the third wave of mass discontent is not merely directed against the incumbent government but also against the established ‘political class.’ People in the movement revered the non-political activists and hated all the politicians alike. The movement and its leadership have been severely criticized for the same; however, without serious introspection by the ‘political class’ and its defenders such criticism is proving to be self-defeating.
All the political parties agreed to the main demand of the movement, i.e. creation of institution of Lok Pal; however, all of them, except the BJP, articulated their positions against content and intent of the movement. Congress Party’s main criticism has been that the movement subverts the parliamentary procedures and prerogatives of the government bestowed upon it by the voters for 5 years. Many regional parties, like Trinamool Congress, DMK as well as AIADMK and NCP, shared this view. The Left said the movement has been crowded by the middle and upper middle class people who have not been uncomfortable with neoliberal policies. On the top of it, the Left alleged, the movement has been funded by the corporate sector. The social identity based political parties and caste based social groups countered the movement arguing that it has been led and dominated by the upper castes and real agenda of this movement has been subversion of the reservation system by undermining the Constitution. Muslim groups and tribal mostly remained aloof from the movement. BJP did not voice its criticism but remained ambivalent about whole-heartedly participating in it. On the other hand, BJP’s key ally Shiv Sena vehemently opposed Anna Hazare’s leadership and criticized the movement. BJP’s ambivalence emerged from two interlinked factors; one, some of its own leaders have been engulfed in the corruption cases and two, the mass mobilizations during the movement have been so apathetic towards the political parties that any overtures from the BJP might have boom-ranged on it. On the other hand, BJP refrained from criticizing the movement because the middle class, which BJP considers as its core constituency, has been sympathetic to the government. Even though BJP kept a safe distance from the movement, RSS has issued directives to its followers to participate in it.
In this overall context, a natural question that arises is who participated in the countrywide massive mobilizations under the banner of India against Corruption if all of the political parties, most of the social/caste based organizations, Muslim groups and tribal maintained a distance from it. One obvious answer is the RSS and the middle class. But some of the prominent figures in this movement, e.g. Prashant Bhushan and Medha Patkar, have been at the loggerheads with RSS as well as BJP on various issues since last many years. Majority of the people who participated were neither mobilized through RSS shakhas nor had any impression that they were participating in a movement organized or led by RSS. Similarly, middle and upper middle class have been more inclined towards liberalism and composite culture and dislikes many of RSS’ extreme ideals and views. Also, scale of the massive support emerged for Team Anna’s agitation in the month of August 2011, has gone beyond the size of the middle class in India. Nonetheless, fact remains that RSS participated in this movement so as the middle class. This convergence is intriguingly interesting. The movement emerged from third wave of mass discontent has a distinctive feature of ‘core’ of the movement and ‘periphery’ of the movement. While ‘core’ anchored the movement, ‘periphery’ participated in it providing real strength to the movement. In a paradoxical situation, Indian society’s those sections who have been benefitted most by the neo-liberal policies and part of those sections, which have neither been benefitted from the neo-liberal policies nor from the State’s welfare measures, are part of this movement.
‘Core’ of the Movement
Neo-liberalism has produced three distinguished sections in Indian society that have now begun to exert their influence on polity. The privatization, entry of MNCs and boom in Information-Technology driven by the private sector has created a neo-rich middle and upper middle class. Supplementary to it, a new entrepreneur class has come into existence in urban India. Together, they all represent first section of the neo-liberal troika. The second section has come into existence in the form of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs). State’s partial withdrawal from the public sphere has simultaneously seen promotion of NGOs. Many of these NGOs compete with the State’s space in the society even while receiving funds from the government or its agencies. Many other NGOs receive funds from foreign agencies and want to perform the State’s duties. Today these NGOs have significantly created networking among people and their role in opinion shaping can not be ignored. The third section that has gained strength during neo-liberal era is electronic, print and digital media. This section is dependent on neo-rich urban class for profit, however, it exerts influences on wider sections of Indian society. All these three sections, which are products of neo-liberalism, look at the ‘political class’ as the main source of corruption that has been looting country’s resources. According to them, politicians’ greed for power and money compels the other sectors, like corporate, media and private entrepreneurs for corrupt practices. Therefore, curbing the corruption at the political offices assumes highest priority for these three sections.
The fourth section, some of the people’s movements, voluntary organizations and social activists, are not a product of neo-liberalism but participated in the present movement. Many of them have been involved in the J.P. movement of 1970s or have been inspired by that legacy and since then independently working on different issues in different forms and at different places. They emphasize on upholding Gandhian principles of morality in public sphere. They also believe in decentralization of financial and administrative powers. According to them, centralization of powers lead to corruption and the existing ‘political class’ perpetuates centralization and indulges in corruption. They believe that ‘Ganga’ of corruption flows from top to down. Hence, eliminating corruption at the top is the first essential step to curb the overall menace of corruption. Like the first three sections, they also hold the existing ‘political class’ mainly responsible for widespread corruption in the country. These four sections constitute the ‘core’ of the incumbent movement arising out of third wave of mass discontent.
The first three sections, as described above, are pro-globalization, practices wealthy life style and mostly comprise of urban based population. People and organizations in the fourth section vary in their approaches to the globalization and at best could be summarized as cautious and wary of economic globalization. They believe in austerity and preach simple living as envisaged under Gandhian world-view; and many of them work among rural communities. Despite these basic differences, the fourth section can form an alliance with the first three sections mainly because goal of the present movement is well defined, i.e. creation of an institution of Lok Pal as envisaged in the Jan Lok Pal Bill prepared by Team Anna. These sections conceive Lok Pal as faithful representative of the civil society, who will investigate and prosecute the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
This is not to suggest that all the people’s movements and voluntary organizations participated in the present movement. Significant number of them has kept away from the agitation. Similarly not all NGOs participated or sympathize with the movement. Reasons of their non-participation vary from simple ego issues to disagreements on nature of agitation to disliking for socio-economic character of other participants. Many voluntary organizations are working according to the principles of advocacy rather than confrontation with the State and hence preferred to stay away from the agitation. Many people’s movements and social activists objected to the elite character of the participants and could not associate themselves with the movement.
Even though, ‘core’ of the movement is resourceful and influential; nonetheless, it does not have the numerical capacity to threaten the government and the established political class. Countrywide massive mobilizations seen during Anna Hazare’s three fasts in Delhi in different months in 2011 does not merely represents ‘core’ sections but a larger participation beyond it. This larger participation constitutes ‘periphery’ of the movement.
‘Periphery’ of the Movement
‘Periphery’ of the movement is much more complex and difficult to categorize. The first section in the ‘periphery’ is comprised of small traders, shopkeepers, small distributors and urban/semi-urban people involved in cottage industries. Most of them face regular harassments at the hands of police and municipal authorities. They could relate with the concept of Lok Pal as an institution that will keep checks on police and bureaucracy. Second section in the ‘periphery’ includes smaller organizations and unions in the urban and semi-urban areas like the transport unions or union of Dabbewallas in Mumbai or union of the working people at the Dhobi Ghat of Mumbai. This section is mostly disenchanted with the political class and would like to see an institution that would make the political class accountable and responsible towards its duties. The third and a major component of the ‘periphery’ has been the urban youth; unemployed, semi-employed or involved in petty businesses. Similarly, large number of college and university students, whose future will certainly be like their youth counterparts, joined the ranks in the movement. This section is well connected through cell phones and internet; and they are under the influence of BPO culture of the metropolitan cities. Along with general frustration with the political class, they look forward to contribute positively towards betterment of the society and the country. The fourth section of the ‘periphery’ is diverse ‘spiritual’ organizations as well as smaller political parties and political organizations. Their purpose of participation in this movement is either to get connected to the people who are out on the streets, or to isolate the Congress-led Central government, or to serve both the purposes. Organizations connected to spiritual guru Shri Ravishankar or Ramdev, many small organizations in different cities and towns that subscribe to non-Congress (or anti-Congress) ideology but are not linked to any major political party as well as the RSS and the CPI (Marxist-Leninist) belong to this category. Overall, these four categories form the ‘periphery’ providing numerical strength to the present movement.
People who participated in the movement from ‘periphery’ could not be classified as beneficiaries of neo-liberal policies; neither do they belong to middle or upper strata of the society nor all of them have origins in the socially higher castes in Hindu society. On the other hand, most of them are equally frustrated with the political class and are fed up with non-existence of electoral alternatives. Most importantly, they have increasingly been isolated from the State’s welfare and social emancipation measures, either due to State’s withdrawal or inefficiency of those policies itself. Again, ‘periphery’ does not represent all the people in the country but sections of it. Particularly those poor and marginalized people having organic links with political parties and been benefitted from their programmes stayed away from the movement.
Conclusion
The third wave of mass discontent is general expression of disenchantment with the established political class. The ‘core’ of the movement is aware of its limitations in terms of numerical strength and lack of cohesive ideology. Therefore, it has defined the goal of the movement in clear terms, i.e. creation of Lok Pal; and objectives as cleaning up the political system from corruption that includes money and muscle powers. The ‘core’ does not have organizational mechanism, so far, to mobilize the ‘periphery’. On the other hand, ‘periphery’s’ participation has been enthusiastic and self-motivated. The ‘core’ is not antithetical to neo-liberal policies and in many ways favors withdrawal of the State. The ‘periphery’ is not mobilized against the neo-liberal policies neither does it view the State as useful entity. The ‘core’ and the ‘periphery’ together represent a wider section of Indian people, who are not influenced or impressed by any of the political formations. On the other hand, political parties lack the programmes that could mobilize these people. Many of the political parties and social formations, once seen as fighting against the establishment during the first and second wave of mass discontents, have now been seen as part of the establishment.
People’s participation in the movement for Lok Pal indicates the political vaccume existing in India. At the time of independence, seven major ideological formations were competing with each other to build the future of India. First, the Congress Party as the umbrella organization and with mixed economy favoring Indian capitalists was the leading force. Second, the socialists emphasized morality in public sphere and State-ownership of major industries. Third, the Hindu right-wing organizations, mainly the RSS and Jan Sangh, envisaged a majoritarian Hindutva-based polity. Fourth, a small group of ideologues led by C Rajgopalachari and supported by some of the capitalists, land-lords and princely lobby aspired for free economy. Fifth, the communists were fighting for alteration of economic and political system on the lines of egalitarian Marxist principles of equal distribution and public ownership of all the means of productions. Sixth, organizations fighting for social emancipation and social equality; inspired by the thoughts and leadership of Dr. Ambedkar, Periyar and others. And seventh, Gandhian principles of village self-reliance and austerity. All of these seven ideological formations have undergone changes and built their bases or experienced erosion in their support; some have even become extinct from political sphere, as a result of first and second wave of mass discontents during 1970s and late 1980s.
The third wave of mass discontent now indicates that political formations based on these ideologies have been exhausted in terms of reaching out to significant sections of the people. Today, India is divided between those having faith in any of these political formations and those who are willing to reject all of them and still not having any other viable alternatives. As a result, even the present movement limits itself to the creation of Lok Pal and cleaning of political system from the corrupt elements rather than trying to form coherent ideological alternative to the existing political formations.
