Only time will tell if India is indeed changing, or if the last two months represented merely a mirage of change that was seen briefly and which is going to pass us by very soon. And only time will tell if the recent ‘hardening in stance’ will end up costing the Congress as dearly as it should. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that far from being an astute and divisive political move- as it is made out to be in ‘Swami and his Friends’- this barbaric, unconstitutional and totally needless police action taken by the government has actually served to unify and strengthen the attack against them. In fact, the only thing which can prevent this government from being thrown out in the near future- and at the very latest by the next election- is the pitiable state of the BJP and the complete lack of any credible and intelligent leadership therein.

Let me start first by refuting the claim that the police action on the night of 4th June at the Ramlila maidan has divided the civil society movement against corruption which was completely amorphous and multi-lingual to begin with. As late as the evening of 4th June, the civil society representatives on the Joint Lokpal Drafting Committee were appearing on news channels and vehemently criticizing the presence of Sadhvi Rithambara- an accused in the Babri masjid demolition case- on the same stage as Baba Ramdev. They were expressing their deep discomfort even at the risk of giving our controversy-hungry 24×7 media another opportunity to say “look, look civil society is divided”. However, on the morning of 5th June, when news of a sleeping crowd of men, women and children being subjected to a lathi-charge and teargas shells in the middle of the night started pouring in, even those civil society members who have had a long history of opposing communal activities of the BJP and the Sangh Parivar and who had been trying to distance themselves from the Baba for some time now, came out strongly in support of many of Baba Ramdev’s demands and his right to protest peacefully for them.

The Congress has in fact committed the same error that it committed immediately after the notification of the Lokpal drafting committee, when it decided that the best way to diffuse the popular movement led by Anna was to orchestrate a smear campaign against the members of the drafting committee and hence discredit the movement. In the run-up and aftermath of the Jantar Mantar agitation, there were several highly respected voices from civil society itself who were extremely unhappy with the developments and who were also principally opposed to various aspects of the Lokpal bill being proposed by Anna’s civil society. However, instead of exploiting these rifts within civil society and negotiating a weak bill which it could take the credit for- which was the government’s intention all along- it decided to manufacture fake CDs, make false allegations and unleash thugs (to use Mr. Digvijay Singh’s own language) like Digvijay and Amar Singh who expectedly brought down the level of the debate to a street brawl. Just as that move had served to unite previously opposing voices and coerce the severest critics of the Lokpal Bill and the Hazare movement into expressing solidarity and support for the same, the Ramlila maidan fiasco has united a diverse and inherently fractured group of voices against the arrogance and moral bankruptcy of the government.

The most distressing part of ‘Swami and his Friends’ for me is the part where the author ridicules the protestors for their cowardice by stating that “a few threats, a lathi-charge and a few teargas shells were all it took for for the supposed 1 lakh committed satyagrahis to empty the pandal”. Many critics have dismissed the statements made by various political and civil society leaders comparing Saturday night’s action to the Emergency and to the Independence movement as mere hyperbole, and although I find comparisons with Jallianwala Bagh quite ridiculous myself, I still cannot recall a single instance from either of these historic time-periods when teargas and lathi-charge had been used against a group of sleeping families in the middle of the night without any prior warning or ultimatum. What imminent threat did this group pose which could not have waited until morning to be resolved? And since when does “minimal use of force” entail having to beat up women and children and even cause one women to be paralysed and three men to have skull fractures? And although I would be the first to describe Baba Ramdev as naive at best and completely crazy at worst, does that imply that he does not have the same rights and privileges as Team Anna’s intellectual and comparatively high-society members? Even if we assume that his motives are suspect and that he is a front for the Sangh Parivar, does that give the government a right to crush his movement and followers in such a draconian manner? And let us remind ourselves that most of Baba Ramdev’s demands- such as bringing back black money stored in foreign accounts and demonetizing higher currency notes- are undoubtedly in national interest and perfectly legitimate. Further, just because the ED, the CBI and various other law-enforcement agencies are suddenly probing every aspect of Ramdev’s background, and the media has chosen to forget the doctrine of ‘Innocent until proven guilty’, it does not mean that we as a society should succumb to every piece of propoganda that the government puts in front of us.

The Congress has been following a two-point strategy to deal with all the controversies that have plagued its current term in office- be it Naxalism, the Lokpal bill or Baba Ramdev. First, one or more of the Royal family’s chosen butlers (Sibal, Chidambaram or Digvijay) goes on the offensive and takes whatever action they deem necessary- whether it’s a paramilitary action, police action or a more sophisticated smear campaign- to thwart the enemy of the moment. Then the rest of the party, led by the Queen, feign ignorance and hide behind the “unimpeachable integrity” of the spineless or complicit Prime Minister. Finally, everyone seeks refuge in the smoke and confusion created by the mixture of voices emanating from India’s oldest political party and calls it a celebration of democracy. Let us make no bones about this- the mixture of voices within the Congress, when heard in the backdrop of unilateral action taken by a few individuals to protect and further their own vested interests is not a celebration, but in fact a mockery of democracy. The only hope is that the citizens of this country are getting tired of seeing repeats of the same play and will soon find the will and courage to bring the curtain down on this theatre of the absurd.

]]> http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/by-crook-or-by-crook-a-response-to-swami-and-friends-c-2011/feed 2 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/swami-and-friends-c-2011 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/swami-and-friends-c-2011#comments Tue, 07 Jun 2011 06:41:59 +0000 Arghya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=3265 Continue reading →]]> If anyone was ever in doubt that India is changing, this should put the thought to rest. To most of us growing up in eighties India, Swami and Friends signified a most enjoyable half an hour in the week where we would be transported to the innocence of RK Narayan’s Malgudi and the antics of ten-year old Swami, his wealthy friend Rajam and the ever-likeable Mani. For impressionable minds today, you wouldn’t be surprised if Swami and friends mean Ramdev and his purported satyagrahis, political machinations, reneged deals, midnight confrontations, far from innocent and farther still from enjoyable.

The jury is out regarding the wisdom of the government’s crackdown on Swami Ramdev’s hunger strike at Ram Lila Maidan. The opposition has likened it to the Emergency, newspaper columnists, with the odd exception, have condemned it for its illiberality and civil society, at least certain sections of it, have questioned the consistency of the government’s resolve in fighting corruption with its inclination to suppress a peaceful anti-corruption protest by force. Having looked carefully at the reactions for the last two days, I will argue in this piece that the government’s action in forcibly breaking up the mass hunger strike at Ram Lila Maidan and dispersing the protesters, in the circumstances that have prevailed since Anna Hazare’s fast, was a politically astute move. By making a controversial religious godman a symbol of the anti-corruption movement, it has fractured civil society forces introducing a communal element within their ranks, saddled the opposition with a divisive sadhu whose popularity is far from widespread and has attempted to restore a semblance of order in political activism in India which was slowly but surely going out of hand.

Let me preface the argument with a caveat. Ideally, the government should have ignored the hunger strike by Swami Ramdev. Protests such as these are common in a democracy and more often than not key to its vitality and good health. And a protest by a divisive godman regarding black money in an air-conditioned pandal in Delhi ought hardly to have caused more than a flutter. But having made extraordinary concessions to its predecessor hunger striker, bent over backwards in placating the Swami when he announced his fast and then struck a purported deal with him, ignoring the fast was never a real option for this government; a pity since that would have been an ideal way to disincentivise future hunger strikers without undue fuss. But the government’s Plan B, of forcibly breaking up the strike, while questionable in principle, was undoubtedly a politically clever strategy, whose benefits far outweigh its costs.

Its biggest and easiest achievement was to expose the Swami and his friends as faux satyagrahis. All it took was a few threats, a lathi charge and a few tear gas shells for the supposed 1 lakh committed satyagrahis to empty the pandal. Not to speak of Swami Ramdev himself. Whether he actually attempted to escape disguised as a woman is debatable; what is certainly true is that he made offered little actual resistance on refusing to be led away. Historical evidence of satyagrahas, in pre-independence India and elsewhere, clearly indicate the incidence of violence when satyagrahis resist. The fact that the violence was minimal and the pandal was emptied expeditiously clearly demonstrate that there was little resistance offered. Swami Ramdev and his friends wanted black money stashed in tax havens abroad to be confiscated, but certainly not at the cost of physical injury to themselves, let alone at the cost of their lives which is purportedly what they were engaged in doing by fasting-unto-death in the first place.

Second, the crackdown has ensured maximum publicity for Swami Ramdev and his anti-corruption crusade, and by doing so has made the divisive Swami the latest face of civil society. Now ‘civil society’ in India is an amorphous term. Its traits are broadly understood as middle and upper middle class, liberal, secular and urban. Now Swami Ramdev is not the most natural poster boy for civil society. He is a Hindu Swami in saffron, which per se raises hackles in such circles; he is distinctly anti-modern and nativist in his outlook, swearing blindly by Swadeshi and the pride of Indian nationhood; and to top it all is clearly anti-intellectual, as is evident from the statements he makes on national television. However the issue of corruption which he is championing is certainly a live issue in civil society. This has put its members in a bind—the civil society members of the Lokpal Bill Drafting Committee have talked tough and stalled talks, whereas other vocal members of civil society have been conspicuously silent. This is unsurprising since public opinion, while firmly in favour of steps to tackle corruption, is more equivocal regarding Swami Ramdev’s role in it. This is partly due to Ramdev himself and the views he holds, and partly due to the fear that with his emergence, the civil society movement against corruption would be conspicuously supported by communal forces, an uneasy alliance for most. Hence with one broad brush, the police action has forced civil society’s strange bedfellows, former police officers and saffron saints, kar sevaks and senior counsels in the Supreme Court to choose between coming together over their deeply held ideological differences or not doing so, fracturing the hitherto united face of civil society; a veritable trap between a rock and a hard place.

Third, the crackdown has cut the Swami down to size from a larger-than-life conscience of the nation to a political activist of questionable integrity, with none of the calmness and the tranquillity that men of God are supposed to possess. Of course much of the moral highground was accorded to Swami Ramdev by the government itself, laying out the red carpet and attempting to strike a deal with him to call off the fast. But the crackdown represents a course correction, and an important one, which both deals with the Swami as a recalcitrant political activist, while bringing out the deep double standards that characterise his position. Since the crackdown, the Swami has brought up Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin issue and alleged that she does not feel the pulse of the ordinary Indian because the Indian soil has not nourished her, in the same breath lavished fulsome praise on statue-happy (and corruption-happy?) Mayawati and requested his ‘adarniya behn’ to give him permission to continue his fast in Noida, and claimed as most politicians do that he never agreed to the purported deal that the government says had been breached and that his representative had been forced to acquiesce. The crackdown has thus brought out the politician in the Swami, and by painting him as a political opponent, sponsored by communal forces and supported by Mayawati, the government has put its rival political parties on the backfoot, saddling them with the task of defending an itinerant Swami, a loose cannon, who divides India as much as fighting corruption unites it.

Finally, with Swami Ramdev’s fast, hunger-striking-at-a-whim was fast becoming an easy way to gain publicity and the favourable attention of the government. The crackdown has made the issue significantly more complex for such potential protesters, since they now know the possibility of police action is imminent and likely. While this would not be a deterrent to those fasting for legitimate issues, members of civil society, both celebrities as well as non-celebrities, who lead and join such fasts for publicity, kicks and camera time, would now have to think closely before taking their decision. A natural fast-filtering process, essential to restore the order of political activism seems to have been put in place as a result of the action, much-needed today in an India where satyagraha, once the byword for courage and bravery, is on the verge of becoming a political joke.