Evolutionary, not revolutionary

Arvind Kejriwal led AAP has taken the traditional Indian democratic practices to the next level – something that had become long overdue. The AAP’s rise is a logical consequence of the way things were moving on the governance front. Indeed, their movement is the Second Movement for Independence from neo-feudal lords… it speaks volumes for our democratic instincts that we prefer to stick to the democratic path to change the government. People in Delhi used the ballot box to boot out the corrupt and bring in a regime that has promised honest and efficient governance.

One winces whenever somebody describes the AAP’s rise as a “revolution.” The term has violent connotations and suggests something sudden and radical. But violence and radicalism have seldom been Indian society’s strong points. We have instinctively eschewed these, invariably opting for gradual changes in different spheres – especially in the socio-political field. This is the reason why, when other newly independent Third World countries were going in for totalitarian/authoritarian forms of governments India chose democracy. Perhaps, this mindset’s roots lie in our history. There is enough historical evidence indicating existence of governments constituted and functioning on democratic principles. The 6^th century BC Ganatantras are a fine example of this, and then there were Sanghas too that were way ahead of contemporary democratic institutions anywhere else in the world. For example, the Shakyas, the clan from which Gautama Buddha came, had assemblies represented by people from all lifestyles. These assemblies deliberated on issues relating to different aspects of governance, and advised the King accordingly. 

Unsurprisingly, we took to democracy like ducks to water. Experts point out that the process of building democratic institutions has been the fastest in the post-1947 India as compared to other democracies around the world.

Democracy and revolutions do not gel together. In a democracy, any change will have to be evolutionary and not revolutionary. This is because a democracy has to create consensus through discussions and debates before opting for change in any sphere. Democratic governments cannot function through fiats. If they do, they strike at the very roots of democratic principles. Therefore, the AAP phenomenon will have to be placed in the overall context of evolution of democracy in India. Its success in Delhi is the culmination of the process initiated by Anna Hazare in 2011. Again, Hazare did not materialize from nowhere to lead the protest against warps and wefts in our polity. His had been a long, persevering struggle over decades. Before winning the Padma Bhushan in 1992, he had put in great sacrifices for the society’s benefit. He invested his retirement benefits received from the Army in the improvement of his village. In his attempts to improve the village folks’ lot, he had to rescue them from the usurious moneylenders. Slowly he turned into an activist and thence a protester against corruption prevailing at different levels of the government in Maharashtra. His was a nonviolent struggle, in the best Gandhian traditions – the traditions that have become a part of our national character. Perhaps this is the reason why it is natural for us to accept a JP or a Hazare as the leader of reformist movements. On the other hand, demagogues of violent transformations have fallen by the wayside. The Naxalite movement is a classic example of our instinctive abhorrence for violent upheavals. 

Arvind Kejriwal led AAP has taken the traditional Indian democratic practices to the next level – something that had become long overdue. It eschews the formulaic approach comprising caste, creed and language based creation of vote banks. Its rhetoric, despite the Bharat Mata Ki Jai slogan, is devoid of parochial and jingoistic shibboleths. Its leftist, pro-poor slant can help push forward the process of establishing egalitarianism in our polity. 

The AAP’s rise is a logical consequence of the way things were moving on the governance front. Indeed, their movement is the Second Movement for Independence, this time from the neo-feudal lords-cum-colonizers, who are treating the country as their colony. While the influential few have been cornering the country’s resources and growth opportunities, common citizens are left to fend for themselves. Police have turned predators, as they have complete protection of politicians. An increasing number of bureaucrats are willingly turning into collaborators of politicians who are indulging in brazen loot. Hence, the circumstances are ripe for AAP’s arrival on the country’s political scene. And it speaks volumes for our democratic instincts that we prefer to stick to the democratic path to change governments. Hence, people in Delhi have used the ballot box to boot out the corrupt and pave the way for a party that has promised honest and efficient governance.

However, we must realize that what the Arvind Kejriwal led AAP is doing is neither new nor revolutionary. The party is only taking the traditional Indian democratic practices to the next level – something that had become long overdue. The creeping feudalism in our polity and the rise of political dynasties in various states as well as the centre are gradually turning our democratic institutions into horrid mutants. Corruption is the norm in everything related to government. There is palpable resistance to reforms. Politicians and other stakeholders in the extant system have developed such lucrative interests that any thought of change is distasteful to them. Consequently, governance suffers. Common citizens gradually are feeling alienated not just from the process of decision-making but also from the government itself – a dangerous drift that has the potential for disastrous consequences for the country.

But India is blessed with traditions that can be drawn upon in the hour of need. Gandhiji arrived on the scene when India needed a leader who would be able to bind the entire nation emotionally. The struggle for freedom acquired a powerful weapon in nonviolent resistance – something the British had not encountered anywhere else in their colonies. That Gandhiji took the struggle to moral-spiritual plane is now well documented. This suited the disposition of the masses too. They may be temporarily excited by spectacular acts of violence but are temperamentally ill prepared to sustain violence for any length of time. But a saintly person, with a spiritual hallow enjoying a reputation for high morality, is something they readily understand. Hence, Netaji SC Bose and the INA may be eulogized and even lionized but Gandhiji was reverentially followed. Bhagat Singh et al might be the stuff of heroic lore but the ordinary anonymous satyagrahi's struggle had mass support. After independence, Vinoba Bhave’s Sarvodaya movement became a classic template for ushering in social change through nonviolent means. He launched two major programs – Bhoodan and Gramdan. The first aimed at persuading big landlords to donate their surplus lands to the landless, while the second program aimed at securing individual property rights in villages. Although one might argue that Vinoba Bhave’s movement during 1950s and 1960s was not a complete success, it did far better than what Naxalites could get for the masses on whose behalf they had reputedly taken up arms.

We all know that the Emergency was the darkest period for democracy in India. It turned the darling of the masses into an unwelcome incumbent. Indira Gandhi, who only a few years earlier was eulogized as Durga post Bangladesh War, was routed in the 1977 general elections after the emergency was lifted. People in India demonstrated their collective disgust for her dictatorial tendencies. Those elections were a milestone in India’s march towards attainment of credentials as a genuine democratic polity. Repeatedly voters have demonstrated their unwillingness to be taken for granted. If Rajiv Gandhi came to power with landslide majority in 1984 elections, he was shown the door in the subsequent one. Similarly, earlier in 1977 elections, Janata Party was given an overwhelming mandate to form government, but when it failed to deliver it was promptly punished in 1980.

We have to see AAP’s rise in that context. The party has risen on the promise of providing clean and responsive government. It may retain this idealistic reformist zeal for a few more years. But eventually complacency is bound to set in if there are no inbuilt corrective mechanisms in place. Will it be possible for AAP leaders to remain unflaggingly vigilant against the rot setting in? If they succeed, it will certainly change the way politics is conducted in our country, and take the Indian democracy’s evolutionary journey towards a direction that might well set not just a new benchmark but also a brand new template for other political parties.