Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Hazare Is Not A Gandhi

By Asghar Ali Engineer

07 September, 2011
Countercurrents.org

Whenever Gandhi undertook fast he called it either repentance or self purification. He never insisted that his demands must be accepted as it is much less at the cost of democratic institutions. In fact he did not fast against Government. To say that only my demand is right and there can be no other point of view is not only undemocratic but authoritarian stand directed against democratic institutions..

Lot has already been written on Anna Hazare’s fast both for and
against but more for than against. Why then need for another article?
Every article has a perspective and I have mine on and also each
article for or against throws light on some new facts not covered by
earlier ones. I had written earlier also from Gandhian perspective but
more needs to be written. This was, whether one agrees with or not, is
a very major movement having lot of implications for our democracy.
First, on how far Hazare is Gandhian and how far his method is
Gandhian? He is being described as Gandhian by the media apparently
because he undertook fast which Mahatma Gandhi used to. But can anyone
become Gandhian just because one undertakes fast? This is really
debatable. Gandhian fast was more about its spirit than its method or
form. In my opinion mere undertaking fast does not make one a Gandhian
unless other conditions are fulfilled.

What are those conditions? Gandhi was very particular, nay insistent
on relationship between means and ends. He strongly felt if means are
wrong, ends cannot remain noble. Thus above all his point of view was
ethical and means are as important as ends. Now what constitutes
means? Is undertaking fast is enough to put it under the category of
ethical? For that we have to examine how Gandhi undertook fast and
under what conditions and for what purpose.

Whenever Gandhi undertook fast he called it either repentance or self
purification. He never insisted that his demands must be accepted as
it is much less at the cost of democratic institutions. In fact he did
not fast against Government. To say that only my demand is right and
there can be no other point of view is not only undemocratic but
authoritarian stand directed against democratic institutions.
Moreover, Gandhi never depended on anyone else when he undertook fast.
It used to be his decision and to end fast also was his own decision.
He never constituted any team and seek their advice nor asked anyone
to negotiate on his behalf. Here not only Hazare insisted on his
demand being accepted but also involved his team to negotiate and
decide. Media also repeatedly referred to ‘team Anna’.

Gandhi never depended on parading people in thousands, much less in
lakhs for legitimacy of his fast but his fast was never coercive and
authoritarian. Anna had to depend on thousands or even lakhs marching
to further strengthen coercive dimension of his fast. One of the
members of the team Anna even threatened on 9th day of his fast that
who will be responsible if something happens to Anna? The implication
was the Government will be responsible and hence Anna’s (which in fact
means team Anna’s demand) must be accepted in toto.

And ultimately this is what happened. Also, the people who were
paraded came from urban middle class upper caste people and not
representative of all sections of Indian people. Minorities, dalits,
tribals and poor, not only did not participate (by and large) but even
felt apprehensive about the consequences of Anna’s fast which
undermined supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament.
These weaker sections of society definitely suffer from corruption as
much as other sections of society and they will support any fight
against corruption. But this fight cannot be at the cost of other
problems of minorities and dalits which appeared to be so in case of
Anna’s fast. They felt their existence and their fundamental rights
are very much dependent on the supremacy of constitution and
parliament.

Anna Hazare’s movement, on the other hand, appeared to represent
majoritarian ethos and got enthusiastic support from main opposition
party BJP and also RSS was seen advising BJP to lend full support to
Anna’s fast and team Anna’s efforts. That made these weaker sections
much more apprehensive. Also, RSS and main opposition support vitiated
Anna’s fast ethically.

It got politicized on one hand, and on the other, accepting support
from a party whose members are deeply involved in corruption wherever
it has its governments in states, particularly in Karnataka. How can
Anna who is fighting against corruption can accept enthusiastic
support and large scale mobilization for a party who too stands
accused of corruption. This seriously affects ethics of Anna’s fast.
Moreover, Gandhiji’s fast remained a very serious effort to
spiritualise politics whereas Anna and team Anna indulged in politics,
accusations and counter-accusation thus eroding the ethicality of the
end. Also, among the crowds there were people who were drunk and used
abusive language. Also, as if all this was not enough, his supporters,
at the instance of team Anna began to gherao M.P.s to accept Anna’s
demands else…Anna himself approved of these acts. Even Prime
Minister’s house was gheraoed eroding the dignity of the office of
premiere authority in democracy.

Also, serious accusations were made against team Anna that foreign
funds were accepted to finance such huge mobilization. Every day food
and water was supplied to thousands or a lakh of people. Where the
money came from? Did money come from impeccable sources? If so why it
is not being disclosed? Some even accuse that VHP was supplying
expenses for food. If there is any truth in this why Anna accepted
finances from these sources. Does he have any link with these sources?
Why did he not ask his team not to accept financing from these
sources?

Anna, unlike Gandhiji, not only never undertook fast against communal
violence in the country, he is not even known to have denounced
communal riots. He even praised developmental model of Modi Government
who was responsible for communal violence in Gujarat in 2002 and what
is worse, he praised developmental model which benefits the rich at
the cost of the poor which Gandhiji will never approve of.
It is in fact liberalization and globalization and super-profits being
made by the rich which is greatly responsible for corruption, in fact,
today, as unlike in the past, it has become main source of corruption.
Gandhiji was basically concerned with the last person in society and
he used to say that a development model which does not benefit the
last man in the society is not worth it.

And Anna praised the developmental model of Gujarat which is nothing
if not enriching and ensuring super-profit to multi-nationals and
financial sharks. How can then Hazare be Gandhian? He used Gandhian
tool but vitiated it with unethical and un-Gandhian ways. Anna is
reported to have said on many occasions that the corrupt should be
hanged. It means violence can be legitimately used for such purposes
which itself is quite un-Gandhian both in form and content.
He also asked his followers in his ‘model’ village to beat with shoes
those who drank liquor and also made them ride donkey and blackened
their faces. These are all violent methods which Gandhiji will never
approve of. This clearly shows an authoritarian strain in Anna Hazare
and he seems to be in a hurry to succeed. Same thing he tries to do
with his fight against corruption.

Corruption can be fought with laws and strong punishments. Hazare
always insists on ‘strong punishment’. As pointed out by me in another
article, it is more of a moral than legal issue. No amount of laws can
even remove corruption. Even death penalty has not succeeded in
reducing murder, let alone ending it. In fact our legal system is also
corrupt. Our lawyers are ever ready to prove a murderer innocent.
Gandhiji, on the other hand, maintained that a lawyer should never
take up any case which he is not convinced is based on truth. And what
is the guarantee that ‘Strong Lokpal’ will not become corrupt and then
corrupt lawyers and judges will not be ready to defend them and prove
them not guilty?

Corruption can be more effectively fought on moral grounds. And how
can we have morally sound citizens when our whole education system is
corrupt, based on high capitation fees for admissions and on the very
concept of money spinning? We need strong value based education to
produce strong moral character than strong Lokpal though the later may
also be needed to an extent.

One does not hear from Anna’s mouth anything about morality whereas
whole emphasis of Gandhiji was on spirituality and morality. He would
dive deep in his moral conscience for solution rather than talk of
laws and punishment. One who is in a hurry to become messiah does not
give importance to voice of ones conscience. He resorts to external
remedies and punishments. To become Gandhi one must dive deep into
moral conscience.

Asghar Ali Engineer is a reformist-writer and activist. Internationally known for his work on liberation theology in Islam, he leads the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra movement. The focus of his work is on (and action against) communalism and communal and ethnic violence in India and South Asia. He is an advocate of a culture of peace, non-violence and communal harmony, and has lectured all over world. He is presently the head of the 'Institute of Islamic Studies' and the 'Centre for Study of Society and Secularism', both of which he founded in 1980 and 1993 respectively

 

 



 


Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.