"When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right" - hardly did Victor Hugo know while writing this line and barely did I comprehend while reading it, that one day India would become a burning example. In a democratic and developing state, the blinding acts of corruption, followed by the conscious incompetence of the government machinery in curbing it, clearly get redefined as dictatorship! Revolution was obvious. If you back a dog up in the corner, it's going to bite. So did they, the subservient yet alive citizens of India.
Let's characterize the Indian ‘junta' before we proceed. Trust me, it's not a mammoth task and just one phrase sums it up all - "common Indian man". It is an intriguing phrase, not because of its figurative or literal meaning, but more so because of the specificity of it's usage for Indians. I doubt if a similar phrase is ever used so profusely in social literature for describing the people of any other country - a 'common Swiss man' or a 'common American man' is a rarity in writings and so is the case in real life. A regular Indian man has always been treated as an ordinary human being who is simply at peace with his undervalued life, low self-esteem, mute servitude and as small a horizon of expectations as is the tattered umbrella under which he covers himself and his family during the Indian monsoon.
But there is a paradoxical attribute of this junta as well - an outlandish combination of inertness and mobility. A common Indian man can overlook the lack of basic human needs like food, shelter and medical facilities, which kills a man as painfully but he cannot bear the sight of a man who puts someone's life in danger by driving irresponsibly. What makes up this differential reaction? What acts as his placebo and what is that which sets off his alarm? Is this difference existent simply because where on one hand, he has made peace with certain deficiencies and human-right deviations, he has still not not been able to acclimatize with some? The answer is No.
The crucial piece to this jigsaw puzzle of unpredictable reactions comprises of only one simple fact - presence or absence of a tangible and evident culprit and the accompanying presence or absence of a commander. Notable is the fact that generally a leader arises only after the group has evolved, whereas in India, on the contrary, it's the group that arises (and arises almost instantly) after the leader has evolved. And the vivacity with which such enormous groups arise can make any smart observer easily determine that the common ideologies that keep a group of people woven together were already well-spread across the society; all that was missing was the form of the group, the identity of the group. Common Indian man is like a grenade which needs someone to locate the target and then pull the pin.
In the particular context of India's ongoing war against corruption, what went wrong was the failure of the government in keeping itself ambiguous as a culprit and then losing its impregnability. Given to the political history of India, the junta could have easily had two scams for a breakfast. This sort of corruption earning even a second round of discussion from the people at the local chai shop would have been a far-fetched scenario, leave aside them being correlated by the people to their own everyday plight. But then surfaced the third scam, and bravo, the fourth made it just in time! Quite a challenge for the short-lived memory of the apparently a-day-late-and-a-dollar-short 'common Indian man'. The culprit was evident, only invulnerable now. The grenade was ready, the thoughts standardized, a commander awaited!
No sooner did the thoughts catch a wave, than the pin pullers from all directions rushed for grabbing the grenade, and thence started, not only the all-acknowledged India's war against corruption, but also the war of motives - the motives of the pin pullers, the social prophets and the underlying war that many a people have failed (or have even deliberately not chosen) to notice. The force behind the revolution was a strong social morale - corruption free polity. And this morale force was so mass-appeasing and self-validated in itself that whosoever wanted to tag along, could do so without even being scanned for his vested interests. People who jumped on the bandwagon included social activists, spiritual gurus, actors, religious leaders, and last but not the least, the politicians themselves.
If we try to go back and chronologically trace the events related to this ever-awaited war against corruption, we will discover that there is an intriguing pattern - coming together of the crusaders/groups, followed by their separations, and then their reunion, all accompanied by the occasional acts of vindication. I remember the time when Kiran Bedi, Anna Hazare, Vishwa Bandhu Gupta, Maulana Nisar Ahmed Husaini, Ram Jeth Malani, Arvind Kejriwal, Acharaya Giriraj Kishore, Dr. Subramanium Swami, Swami Agnivesh and many others shared the stage with baba Ramdev at Delhi's Ramlila ground on Feb 27, 2011. It was a huge mass rally and can be termed as the war trumpet. Moreover such an array of social merit-holders upon the stage depicted a very powerful anti-corruption force. But when I look beyond the very obvious charisma of this team of leaders, I am able to see its one of those potent facets that could have quite reasonably made it the most lethal framework against corruption. Not only was it secular in nature, but it comprised of the individual movers of the three broad economic layers of the society - academicians and intellectual (who the Indian elite love to associate with), the struggling ( who the Indian middle class relates itself the most to) and the mass emissaries (who the non-affluent look upon as demigods).
Anna Hazare has been an eminent social activist but as a commander he only had a small team of activists at his disposal, which he knew, could be crushed by the mighty rulers, much before he would even declare a full-fledged mutiny. Bureaucrats like Vishwa Bandhu Gupta commanded a rational outlook towards political conspiracy theories but again, he was a king without subjects. Baba Ramdev was the only potential source of churning enormous manpower. Moreover, his recent initiatives like Bharat Swabhiman movement complemented with his lack of political acumen made him an obvious choice for the future crusaders. At this juncture it is difficult to say whether the 'personal vested interest and ambition' of the movement leaders was born after the rally of February 27, as a result of the intoxicating flavor and new-found confidence that they got while virtually leading a mammoth army of common men, or is it that it already existed and all that they wanted to do was take leverage from Baba Ramdev's mass-accumulating forte? Dr. Subramanian Swamy, however, always appeared to be the only person present in that forum who was devoid of an intricate motive. He has been able to stand his ground, which he stood since long before that event and has till date successfully evaded involvement in any such expedience politics that may besmirch his sagacious patriotism.
Now those who know it, know it well that the middle class of India are the last people on earth to participate in an upheaval of any kind. So basically they render their individual leaders army-less, at least outside the territories of print and internet world. While the blind-as-a-bat 'common Indian man' might have missed to notice the resource-sharing that was taking place during that initial phase of anti-corruption war, the government surely did! And they immediately resorted to the time tested weapon of divide-and-rule. They knew that the only harmless species in that group of mutineers was the struggling class of activists - neither did they have the bayonets of intellectuals nor did they have the aggrieved army of 'common Indian men' to carry those bayonets. The government had begun to realize that a person like 'the unbridled cannon-mouthed' Vishwa Bandhu Gupta can at least puncture their bubble of goodwill at the ground level (if not completely annihilate it) if he gets some more chances to handle the crowd in similar fashion.
Team Anna was discreetly singled out, and with the aid of cordial dialogue series and the promises of conveniently letting Anna hold an 'Indefinite Hunger Strike' in April, they were led down the garden path. The only condition was - team Anna shall abandon any formal or zealous association with the likes of Vishwa Bandhu Gupta or Dr. Subramanian Swamy or Baba Ramdev! What followed was a series of events that quite evidently portrayed the divide - Vishwa Bandhu Gupta, Dr. Swamy and Baba Ramdev were subtly deterred from making their presence felt in the first 'Indefinite Hunger Strike' organized at Jantar Mantar Delhi in the month of April, 2011; Anna Hazare was practically silent at the time of baba Ramdev's anshan on June 4, 2011 at Ramlila Ground Delhi and only feebly responded to the ensuing undemocratic act of Police vandalism; Vishwa Bandhu Gupta did not not miss a single chance to go verbally ballistic at team Anna until the day Anna Hazare launched his second indefinite hunger strike in support of Jan Lokpal Bill on 16 August 2011; the rest is a history.
But one question surely and awkwardly bothers the common mind - are these the same people who happily and enthusiastically shared one common stage to address the common junta against corruption? If so, then what went astray? What was that weakness in team Anna'a moral that made them take the government's bait? If it was the difference of ideologies, it could be with one or two of the people, but surely not with the whole lot. Moreover, since their fight is for a common cause - introducing the Jan Lokpal Bill - they could have given a guiding support to the rest of the group who were maybe immature or bewildered in the political maze. Or is it that they visualized some kind of personal win in this entire war and they wanted to reach the victory stand alone. Or is it that by the time they realized that congress has misled and misused them and they wanted to regroup, the others had already nurtured their own personal ambitions?
But one question surely and awkwardly bothers the common mind - are these the same people who happily and enthusiastically shared one common stage to address the common junta against corruption? If so, then what went astray? What was that weakness in team Anna'a moral that made them take the government's bait? If it was the difference of ideologies, it could be with one or two of the people, but surely not with the whole lot. Moreover, since their fight is for a common cause - introducing the Jan Lokpal Bill - they could have given a guiding support to the rest of the group who were maybe immature or bewildered in the political maze. Or is it that they visualized some kind of personal win in this entire war and they wanted to reach the victory stand alone. Or is it that by the time they realized that congress has misled and misused them and they wanted to regroup, the others had already nurtured their own personal ambitions?
The questions are innumerable but the matter of fact is - the diabolical seeds of divide-and-rule had been once again sown successfully in the second tale of India's movement towards betterment. The weeds of personal motives, vested interests, political ambitions and grudging rivalry seem to have sprouted once again in the hearts of our war leaders! Lets see whether these weeds will grow dense enough to starve the capabilities, intellect, vision and morale of these competent flag-bearers of the anti-corruption movement, or will they be hoed out as meticulously as they crept in. But one thing is for sure - the 'common Indian man', whosoever he is, has kept aside all his paranoia and has dearly invested his most valuable possession - hope and trust - in this movement. In all circumstances, faith shall win!
