KIRAN BEDI
WE SHUNNED POLITICAL DEBATE, RECONCILING WITH POLITICIANS' HISTRIONICS AND TREACHERY.WE USED THEM AND THEY USED US, AS THE NEED BE. A TRANSACTIONAL RELATIONSHIP
Why did Anna Hazare succeed and the government concede? What brought the entire Parliament to pass a unanimous resolution and accept three main demands of Anna that concerned the common man? Above all, were the indefinite fasts of April 5 at Jantar Mantar and August 16 at Ramlila Ground avoidable, or inevitable?
Another question being asked is what made Anna succeed in driving home the determination for the janlokpal bill?
Are there some key lessons to be drawn for `We the People' and `We the Elected'?
As an insider, I saw the janlokpal bill gain momentum, as also hurtling towards confrontation. I saw response patterns of those in power, which drove it to extremes. Here are the two keys lessons: LESSON ONE Let me begin with `We the People'. The millions had thus far been, by and large, silent spectators. We were distressed, complaining and brooding. Accusing, and even abusing. We were also distancing ourselves from the goings-on. We had shifted our focus to our own selves, the near and dear ones, those we were anxious about. The rest were outsiders.
What happened to those outside the inner circle was their destiny. We shunned political debate, reconciling with politicians' histrionics and treachery. We used them and they used us, as the situation demanded. It was a ransactional relationship. “I vote and financially support underhand) you, and you do me favours (also underhand) n case of need“ was the idea.
It was thus a paid retainerhip, though on the face of it a elationship of polite acceptance. In reality, it was one of everal masks. The situation made fertile grounds for headines, `exclusives', case studes, fiction writing, speaking ngagements, columns, books, debates, policy groups, fundng for such causes, far and wide, consultants, committee members, project writers, and various forms of activist groups, cause formations, mall movements, and more.
These members, some very espectable, kept the parallel debate, drawing-room arguments, gossip, information, criticism, release of anger, alive. All had their own contituencies with strong beliefs.
At several places, it was middle class crab culture “If not me, you neither.“
The biggest beneficiaries were the scheming politicians, officials and those individuals or groups from other professions, including “self-engaged brokers“, that were secure in the oligarchy-user network based on mutual disuse of national wealth, or the herd mentality living on insecurity of an affiliated group.
This “people energy“, creative or otherwise, never became “public synergy“. It could not come together. The division suited many. Status quo was a habit. Many had reconciled to the give-and-take relationship. The few standalone voices were getting lost.
The power centres, scared of sustained numbers, never felt threatened. People also never had a personality they could trust and rally around. But there was growing frustration.
The country lost over 60 years to deceit and the corrupt. Anna's movement exposed the pent-up anger in the have-nots. While it knit them together, it also exposed the divisiveness in the classes that had reconciled.
This is where the lesson lay: As long as `We the People', across sections, do not keep the interest of the country above ourselves; we (the havenot majority) will remain vulnerable to exploitation from the very same people who we delegate the responsibility to serve. Patriotism is the key value we need to ingrain in our children and ensure they practise it. Only then shall we be able to ensure better future for Gen X. India shall never be short of Anna Hazares.
Another question being asked is what made Anna succeed in driving home the determination for the janlokpal bill?
Are there some key lessons to be drawn for `We the People' and `We the Elected'?
As an insider, I saw the janlokpal bill gain momentum, as also hurtling towards confrontation. I saw response patterns of those in power, which drove it to extremes. Here are the two keys lessons: LESSON ONE Let me begin with `We the People'. The millions had thus far been, by and large, silent spectators. We were distressed, complaining and brooding. Accusing, and even abusing. We were also distancing ourselves from the goings-on. We had shifted our focus to our own selves, the near and dear ones, those we were anxious about. The rest were outsiders.
What happened to those outside the inner circle was their destiny. We shunned political debate, reconciling with politicians' histrionics and treachery. We used them and they used us, as the situation demanded. It was a ransactional relationship. “I vote and financially support underhand) you, and you do me favours (also underhand) n case of need“ was the idea.
It was thus a paid retainerhip, though on the face of it a elationship of polite acceptance. In reality, it was one of everal masks. The situation made fertile grounds for headines, `exclusives', case studes, fiction writing, speaking ngagements, columns, books, debates, policy groups, fundng for such causes, far and wide, consultants, committee members, project writers, and various forms of activist groups, cause formations, mall movements, and more.
These members, some very espectable, kept the parallel debate, drawing-room arguments, gossip, information, criticism, release of anger, alive. All had their own contituencies with strong beliefs.
At several places, it was middle class crab culture “If not me, you neither.“
The biggest beneficiaries were the scheming politicians, officials and those individuals or groups from other professions, including “self-engaged brokers“, that were secure in the oligarchy-user network based on mutual disuse of national wealth, or the herd mentality living on insecurity of an affiliated group.
This “people energy“, creative or otherwise, never became “public synergy“. It could not come together. The division suited many. Status quo was a habit. Many had reconciled to the give-and-take relationship. The few standalone voices were getting lost.
The power centres, scared of sustained numbers, never felt threatened. People also never had a personality they could trust and rally around. But there was growing frustration.
The country lost over 60 years to deceit and the corrupt. Anna's movement exposed the pent-up anger in the have-nots. While it knit them together, it also exposed the divisiveness in the classes that had reconciled.
This is where the lesson lay: As long as `We the People', across sections, do not keep the interest of the country above ourselves; we (the havenot majority) will remain vulnerable to exploitation from the very same people who we delegate the responsibility to serve. Patriotism is the key value we need to ingrain in our children and ensure they practise it. Only then shall we be able to ensure better future for Gen X. India shall never be short of Anna Hazares.
LESSON TWO Political and powerful classes must not live under the illusion that masses can be misled or ignored all the time. In the initial stages of the Anna Hazare movement, key persons in power were under the impression that demands being made could be dealt with by giving false assurances. As the movement gathered momentum, certain quarters threatened it could be crushed.
The message was that “just one-hour notice is sufficient to clear Ramlila Ground“. In other words, to forcibly evict Anna Hazare and the thousands of people who had assembled at the ground in support of the janlokpal.
The lesson here was that the elected representatives must be (and also forced to be) in regular consultation with their constituents to understand specific needs and aspirations, and effectively convey those to the “high command“.
Had both the situations not been a habit, the country would have had no shortage of infrastructure. The North-East would have been better connected. Our hard-earned money would not have been siphoned to foreign destinations.
No comments:
Post a Comment