Father courage

The Anna Hazare team has decided to go for broke,making arrangements for a fast and “jail bharo” campaign if the Lokpal bill is not drafted their way. Instead of addressing their substantive points to the standing committee that will consider the bill when it comes up,Hazare and his fellow-travellers have chosen to restart their agitation and hunger strike until their specific set of demands is factored into the bill. Meanwhile,Hazare also wrote to the prime minister,asking him to intervene on the conditions imposed on the fast by the Delhi police,and asking him to “show courage”.

This approach is typical of what we have seen so far of the Jan Lokpal agitators — a swollen sense of entitlement,one that genuinely believes it should be their way or the highway when it comes to crafting a strong anti-corruption mechanism and that refusing their demands is to accede to the sorry rules of politics-as-usual. And instead of furthering their cause by argument and persuasion,which is the way causes are advanced in liberal democracies,they reduce the question to individuals — shooting off letters to the PM and the Congress president,urging them to step in and salvage their version of the bill.

There can be several contentions about what the institution of the Lokpal should look like,and the scope of its powers. There is constructive friction among political parties as well as civil society camps on these significant details,and the arguments must be allowed to play out. Parliamentary processes and wider consultations are the only fair way these details can be threshed out and competing demands evaluated — but these are now viewed with mistrust,even contempt,by Team Anna. In their view of things,they own the cause of integrity in public life,and all opposition,reasonable or unreasonable,is tantamount to betrayal. Those who walk with them are committed patriots,and the others either lack courage or are accomplices in corrupt practices. Instead of addressing their argument to Parliament and pushing for the merits of their version,they prefer closed huddles and committees,or impassioned letters to various leaders. As citizens in a democracy they have a right to do so,of course,and that right must be defended. But they should be under no illusion about the illiberal nature of their activism.