Tuesday, February 18, 2014

AAP, Mohalla Sabhas and Democracy

Arvind Kejriwal’s short lived 48 day government in Delhi continues to dominate the news cycle even after it fell. It’s certainly been eventful, with allegations of flip-flops, drama, racism, poor governance and being the B team of the Congress being juxtaposed with some credible achievements. My view on all this is that Kejriwal was under a disproportionate amount of scrutiny, because of the high standards he set for himself. Impatience is never a virtue in public life, and Kejriwal has been guilty of it, while being a victim of the same. The allegations of dramatics miss the point, since political parties in this country have to be dramatic. Moreover, if people had a problem with dramatics, they should have complained when it was a major ingredient of the Jan Lokpal movement, or as recent as his swearing – in ceremony. The most serious allegation is that of racism. While the jury is still out on the legitimacy of the party’s claims on the case, the fact remains that the case was an example of the bias of the majority taken as fact, with propriety and the rights of the accused being a casualty. His government’s biggest contribution, the mohalla sabhas, has been condemned to the footnote in this heady mix of claims and counter-claims.



As somebody who believes that grassroots democracy is the only panacea to the many ills facing the country, the idea of mohalla sabhas struck a chord with me. There has been criticism to this idea, but unfortunately, it has been consigned to the ideologically inept argument of AAP being a party of overground naxalites and anarchists. The idea of citizen councils having a say in the development of their localities seems perfectly reasonable, even mandatory in any democracy. If we do claim to be the world’s largest democracy, surely it follows that we will empower grassroots democracy and usher an era of real development? The criticism of this idea seems to be borrowed from Ambedkar’s famous quote on villages being a den of superstition and communalism. The criticism seems to be that such councils will bring in another layer of red-tape to a system which is a labyrinth of babudom, favours and hierarchy. Doesn't it already take a number of years for any project in this country to be approved? Wouldn't another layer simply make this process more drawn out than it already is?



There seems to be a large section of this country which seems to consider roads built, steel and concrete as evidence of development. When we talk about development, this constituency thinks only in terms of tar, steel and concrete. Of course, this is a perfectly valid assumption. No country can progress without proper infrastructure and infrastructure is central to every citizen’s lives since it is for public use. However, there is also the question of how do we go about creating world-class infrastructure? Some people, most of them unsurprisingly cheerleaders for the Modi version of crony capitalist “development”, seem to have a fascination with the Chinese way of going about these things. Where existing structures are demolished to make way for these shiny new toys of the elite and the concern for rehabilitation is secondary. Where the local population simply has to accept that their livelihood is going to be destroyed and they have to learn to deal with it, helped by whatever morsels the benevolent leader throws at them. Big bucks for big business, shiny new toys for the elite, while the poor suffer from the deluded assumption that all this was for their own good. This is “development” you see. It doesn’t matter that the poor will remain excluded from these new toys built from their livelihood; what matters is that we have these new toys and the world will marvel at “Shining India”. This constituency has taken a beating of late after 20 years of “development”, with support cutting across party lines. Since land remains under the discretionary powers of our Honourable Representatives, such “development” meant bigger kickbacks while the sheep vote for them after swallowing their venal claims of this being progress. Since the government outsourced vigilance to the CAG and the Supreme Court, no more could they claim that spectrum allocated at half the price is the only way to bring down call rates or that inflated cost of toilet paper at a sporting event will raise India’s standing in the comity of nations. So, a pliant media, aided by big business which clearly did not appreciate their thievery of national resources being stopped, re-booted the phrase “policy paralysis” when there has been a policy paralysis since at least 1965. Since thievery has to be sold as progress in a democracy to gain votes, this “policy paralysis” became the sole reason for lack of development.



It is a disgrace that engagement with the people is seen as a roadblock to development in some quarters. If a road is to be built in my locality, I am the biggest stakeholder. Not the guy who drives his swanky SUV. Development means that road should serve as an instrument of progress for me and my neighbours. It should help us travel from place X to place Y, help us get to our places of work faster and not be ridden with potholes at the slightest amount of rain. If it is truly an instrument of public good, why will there be opposition? Surely, I should decide what comes in my locality, not some babu or politician whom I see only once in 5 years! Is it development when big business comes to my door, wants to buy land and my livelihood for a fraction of the market price? Is it democracy or the often used “governance” when I have no say in how my livelihood is affected? Clearly, there are concerns with engagement; what is to be done when the council is overtaken by anti-social elements? What is to be done when the council exhibits the bias of the majority, as seen in the case where a locality decreed that people from the North-East move out? However, these are not reasons for not having this process of engagement. So what is the reason for the fervent opposition from some and the cries of horror from the media?
The present political and economic system in this country is clearly in a state of decay and has been for some time. After liberalisation in 1991, we had a real chance to end the system of discretion, wherein one politician decides everything. However, we chose to scrap it only partially. The venal powers-that-be could clearly see that the powers they were getting rid of would be compensated by holding on to some discretionary powers that would be hugely beneficial, especially when private capital went unchecked. The media followed suit, and hence the yarn of “the most historic period of fighting poverty” was being spun. As it did when such policies were the norm in the west, inequalities increased. A culture of greed, opulence and selfishness was celebrated as “achievement”. Public resources started being sold to the highest bidder. The government started selling off its responsibilities in health, education, food, shelter, housing to private parties, all in the name of development. All this has created a culture where the 10% growth, 90% thievery model of development in Gujarat is seen as a panacea to all our ills. Since such models benefit big business the most, support from those quarters was assured. The simple act of engaging with the people, threatens this system like no other. When people are empowered, they will refuse to be hoodwinked continuously. They will ask questions, demand answers and demand results. They will no longer continue to accept girls wanting to be thin as excuse for malnutrition. They will not accept public services being decrepit and of poor quality for years together. They will not accept this system where a poor man, who can only afford to send his children to government schools, pulls them out since they don’t get a proper education in those schools. They will no longer accept doctors not turning up in government hospitals while the sick die of inadequate infrastructure. They will no longer accept being told to sell their land to make way for a factory which makes no attempt to make their lives better than before.



Therefore, the debate on AAP is a debate on democracy. It is about the kind of democracy we want, where people engage with their representatives and everybody works in tandem for a better India. Or a sham democracy wherein the only power the citizens have is to vote once in five years and trust in the benevolence of the leader. The hope that a liberal centre would be free from the bias of the majority held true at a time when people truly worked for public welfare. When the centre is victims of the same bias, what sort of liberalism can we expect? When the President of the main Opposition Party terms homosexuality as “unnatural and against Indian culture”, is it liberalism? When the government, after opposing decriminalisation in 2009, supports the same with an eye on polls, is it liberalism? The mainstream is littered with the bias of the majority, the same den of superstition and communalism Ambedkar rallied against. When the mainstream refuses to conform to the liberal ideals of this country with an eye on votes to be gained by pandering to the den of superstition and communalism, there is no logic in this argument.  This debate also challenges the existing view of what a leader should be. When Kejriwal went on his dharna, or sat on the road, it disturbed some people since “he represents the people of Delhi before the world”. For a people obsessed with how we are perceived, this is unsurprising. Unfortunately, image is more important than specifics for us. As long as we present a veneer of being democratic and holding true to our values, we will be happy. This hypocrisy must end.



It isn't my case that only AAP represents good for the country. It is my belief that for the challenges we face at this time, they represent the best option. Their mistakes should be condemned; the Khirki incident seems to be one, but we must remember that since they are the biggest challenge to the status quo, they represent the biggest hope for this country at this time. Not “chappan inch ki chaati” politics; not politics of venality and sycophancy.