I have deliberately started the post with this cliched statement. The difference, from the normal reference of this statement though, is that the question here is two folds - first, whether the people having great powers are sharing great responsibilities, and the second, whether people who have assumed great responsibilities have "sufficient" powers?
Before proceeding further, I would like to make some clarifications. I have great respect for Anna and the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement and believe that they have done a great service to the nation by bringing the issues of corruption to the tea-tables and facebook walls of millions of people. To extend my support, I also went to the Jantar-Mantar during his fast in April.
Sadly though, the movement which started as a crusade against corruption has turned into one of brinkmanship and ego clashes, and the cause of the nation seems to have got lost somewhere in between. There's an impending showdown between two factions, the State and the Civil Society. The former led by people who have adopted the Mahatma's surname (or the Gandhis) and the latter led by people who claim to have adopted his lifestyle (or the Gandhians). And this is where the two questions I posed at the start becomes relevant.
The government seems to have assumed a hell lot of powers lately sans the responsibilities that should have come with it. In a time when it is facing a great trust deficit and has lost its face completely, instead of trying to regain the people's faith it is hell bent on concealing the errors and defending them through its constraining powers. When you (along with the rest of the world) knows that you have committed a blunder, there are only two ways out. You either accept your mistakes with all earnest and start sincere efforts to rectify them or you press your feet down, deny everything and carry on the ostrich like attitude. To the utter frustration of the people of India, the government chose to walk the second path. The high handedness that it is showing to curb all dissents, be it "outsiders" like Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev, or "insiders" like Jagan Mohan Reddy is really alarming. That the Opposition has taken its position strictly in a literal sense isn't helping the cause either.
Now moving to the civil society. In my view, it has assumed much more responsibilities than it can handle and doesn't have "sufficient powers" to back that. While the earlier protest did a great job of awakening the State from the long hibernation and also arousing the people to discuss the issues of corruption and governance, assuming the "responsibility" of making law is not something that sets a good precedence. Yes, the government is corrupt and generally is unwilling to listen. But they should keep in mind that they are fighting "for the people" which doesn't necessarily mean "against the government". While protesting and showing dissent is their democratic right, coercing the democratic institutions to accept their version of the bill isn't. What hurts most is the attitude of "either you are with us, or you are corrupt". Their claims that the people are with them should also not be overemphasized. It's no secret that it is much easier to convince people to go for radical actions, especially when they are already enraged. At the moment, when they are so vulnerable because of anger against the setup and a leadership vacuum created by government's inaction, it's very easy to arouse them for protests. And this is where I think the Gandhians don't have the powers of the Gandhi.
While the methods that the current crusaders are using are Gandhian, the difference lies in the fact that Gandhi had the power to start and stop a movement at will. The civil society can surely start a movement and as per the current trends, it would garner great support, but I fear that they certainly don't have enough power to press the off-button if the movement gets out of hand. While in the current scenario it is very easy to ignite people's sentiment for protests and jail-bharo andolans, asking them for being against corruption constructively (refusing to pay bribe, paying taxes honestly, etc.) requires moral authority which the Mahatma surely did posses, though I am not sure about the Gandhians in this context. Everyone knows that during the dreaded days of the partition, when the nation was reeling under communal riots all around, Bapu used to go to the riot sites and refused to move unless people stopped the barbarous act. And he would eventually succeed in achieving what the police and army couldn't!
I would end this by clarifying again that I am not a no-changer or a cynic but I sincerely hope that people will give democracy a chance. We have a great example of Right to Information in front of us where an effective law was passed due to the great efforts of many of the people who are associated with the IAC now. Though its true that the RTI act is not flawless and can be improved, but there can be no doubt that it has become a great tool in the hands of the people. Lets stress on making India corruption free rather than passing a particular version of a bill. Lets choose discussion over coercion. I would like to invoke the Great Soul at this hour of crisis - Sabko sanmati de bhagwan!
