The bewilderment continues; the crowds have not disappeared, they are swelling and extolling Anna Hazare. None can fathom, leave alone explain what is afoot; this has gone viral; New York and London are impacted.
Only an arrogant TV anchor or an opinionated commentator would venture an analysis of this strange phenomenon that we are witnessing on an hourly basis. Is this Reality TV or a rerun of that classic Jim Carrey movie, The Truman Show? For we see a Hazare making an impassioned speech in one scene, only to find him spluttering in another, saying I am sorry, I am tired now and want to rest. Pure Carrey!
Let us therefore dwell on bare facts; help the reader navigate through this dense fog, for the mist lifts only to cloud up again. The latest twist is the famous ‘sticking points’. Indeed it is a challenge to write on the Hazare story; it is evolving by the minute.
The mood at that venue where Hazare is fasting has undergone change as I write, the tenor and tone of the speakers is shrill and clarity on the core demands to bring this fast to an end is receding. The man’s life is in danger; it is a tinder box, a tragedy waiting to happen with people milling around.
Notwithstanding these grim tidings, to get back to the debate there is more than a patronising sneer in this chatter between the street and the op-ed writers. Yet the anger on the street is palpable, one can smell the rage; the fervour and zeal is frightening, for at one level it presages a revolution. At another, it is hugely uplifting, an unprecedented mass movement not for a tax break or for the start of an entitlement programme. No, this is altruism of the highest order. It is a genuine people’s movement for the betterment of all.
This is Alexander Dumas, One for all, all for one! Who will carp at that lofty spirit?
Having said that, if one is not to let this crisis go waste, it is necessary to have a rudimentary grasp of the essentials of a democracy and how it works, not repeating that old saw, for the people, by the people, of the people. One must have in hand the nuts and bolts of how this gig works, not just in theory but in practice.
Questions like what is supreme in a democracy stumble out as we discuss this conflicted Ombudsman Bill. Parliament says some, others scoff, saying the people are supreme. The jurists declare the constitution as the ultimate citadel.
But all this is a puzzle and we are back to the central question; how is one to ascertain the will of the people? As there are no easy answers let us summarise the stated positions of the warring parties and leave the reader to find his way through the maze. First, the standing committee: This is a select group of parliamentarians tasked to undertake a pre-debate before any bill is formally tabled in the house. It has a manageable cluster of members to listen, reason and arrive at some consensus for a lengthier and more intense discussion in the lower and upper house of parliament.
Hazare’s stand?
There is a stubborn streak in him, he sometimes appears to suggest that it should be his way or the highway, at other times he hints at being accommodating; there is waffle on his red lines for he has brought up new conditions, tagged as ‘sticking points’ which happily is no longer a deal-breaker, for the government has almost caved in on this.
The Citizen’s Charter which is one of them is a stroke of genius but all this is no help in unlocking the fast which is over 220 hours and still counting. Time is of essence here.
Referendum: This is no longer a talking point, but it is absurd to have thought that complicated pieces of legislation with long-term implications can be subject to a simple minded, yes/no in a referendum. Besides this is India, not the cantons of Switzerland.
Don’t forget there are strategic implications to this bill, if this instrument to protect and preserve the rights of people weakens the state’s ability to govern, develop and safeguard the nation then India is in serious trouble. Sovereignty is supreme and if the state withers, we the people wither.
The government: Notwithstanding the monumental blunders they have committed thus far, their current position is actually fair, reasonable and worthy of merit.
They are contrite and have accepted that Hazare has aroused their conscience and the nation’s and are pleading for time to come up with a powerful bill that meets the aspirations of all sections of society. They have also made a plea that this is not a binary yes/no type of debate. In their defence, take the Indian constitution, the longest in the world and perhaps the most creative piece of legislation ever crafted. This took years to forge and it borrowed from the best practices of the English common law, the high republican spirit of the American constitution and the egalitarian soul of the French revolution.
The Ombudsman Bill is as layered and subterranean as the constitution and so the iterative process will be long and hard and the end result can be incandescent.
The Redeemer: Hazare has made history despite the cynics, he has used people’s power to bend the high and mighty; indeed he may have opened a brave new frontier to make this Parliament and the many around the world confront the pressing ugly realities on the ground. And Hazare may yet claim his patrimony from that great soul, Mahatma Gandhi. The closing scene on this enduring spectacle is yet to be scripted and a self-deprecating quote by Nehru should deservedly be the last word:
“We are little men serving great causes, but because the cause is great, something of that greatness falls upon on all of us.”
Ravi Menon is a Dubai-based writer working on a series of essays on India and on a public service initiative called India Talks.
