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.
Posts
