Opinion The faces in the mirror

Ashok Chavan,former CM of Maharashtra,on why allegations are being levelled against him — and how his relatives are returning the apartments in Adarsh Society in any case: “The allegations against me are politically motivated… Seema Vinod Sharma and Madan Sharma are relatives. Today,they have informed in writing that they have resigned from the society”.

Shanti Bhushan on why allegations are being levelled against him — and how the UP government can cancel his plot if it likes: “This is part of the malicious campaign by those corrupt,influential people… If there has been any arbitrariness in the allotment of the plots,the allotments should be cancelled…”

Suresh Kalmadi on why he can’t resign from the Commonwealth Games Committee: “These Games are my baby… My priority is to make a success of the Games and I will not run away from responsibility.” 

Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi on why the Bhushans can’t resign from the Lokpal drafting committee: “No one will resign. We are at a historic juncture where we are going to have a strong anti-corruption law…”

The intention behind pointing out these uncanny parallels is not to suggest an equivalence between politicians and civil society activists. Politicians get to have their hands on thousands of crores of public money and they take fundamental decisions that affect our lives. Civil society activists do neither. So the actions of politicians have a kind of gravity that the actions of civil activists simply do not carry.

However,these parallels do serve another function: they point out the flaws in the movement led by Anna Hazare,India Against Corruption (IAC). Unless these are addressed,the establishment will make mincemeat out of the movement. Already,the honourable leaders of IAC are beginning to look like caricatures of the politicians they are taking on.

The first flaw is that IAC’s leaders have spent all their time on how to improve the political system and very little on how the movement itself is to be organised. Even the principles that drive the movement are not available for public examination. Who forms IAC’s leadership? How are they chosen or elected? How are decisions made? The only information of significance that you can find about the organisation of IAC on its website is a list of twenty “eminent personalities who started this movement.”

This seeming lack of attention to the movement’s structure has led to a situation where IAC’s response to attacks from politicians,that are only to be expected,is no different from those of politicians themselves when they are caught in the act. Needless to say,this takes away the pedestal which any popular movement needs to stand on. Here are two specific steps that could have helped IAC avoid getting into unnecessary controversy.

1. All office-bearers or representatives of IAC need to declare their assets. If any asset has been accumulated by the munificence of public authorities,that ought to be disclosed. This would have avoided the movement’s leaders being taken aback by the revelation that the Bhushans were recipients of the UP government’s generosity. And Justice Santosh Hegde wouldn’t have had to say,as he did a few days ago,“if all this (were) known earlier,people who were advising Annaji… probably would not have included them in the committee”.

2. An affirmation that,in the work of the IAC,principle would take precedence over loyalty. This would have made it clear to IAC leaders that when,rightly or wrongly,charges are levelled against any one of them,their first priority is to protect the movement. If this was a clearly stated principle,the Bhushans would have offered to resign — and even if they didn’t,the others would have asked them to step down in the interests of the movement.

This is not to say that the Bhushans are guilty. Whether or not they are is immaterial at this stage. What is material is that doubt has been created about the propriety of some of their actions. By his own admission,Shanti Bhushan accepted land at absurdly subsidised rates from the state government of Uttar Pradesh even while he was arguing against that government in court. Considering that the Bhushans have consistently weighed in against public officials accepting subsidised plots from government,there is an appearance of impropriety. Come to think of it,a serious appearance of impropriety is all that we have,as of now,against the Rajas,the Kalmadis and the Kamal Naths.

This is why the stance of IAC’s leaders is problematic. I wish them the good sense to set the course right. The focus and urgency that IAC has brought to the issue of corruption in high places is a huge positive and that needs to be sustained.

The writer is a former editor of ‘Businessworld’