For whom Anna gives it those ones

Hazare's fast has been covered in different ways. People have termed it as a “people's movement” or “people's revolution”. People who were cautious merely termed it as a “phenomenon”. Others dismissed it as a mere “incident”. So the question arises, what were the four days all about? All the above mentioned words have different connotation. I believe that every word expresses its own meaning. They don't require definitions. The people who organised this are one-sided. Naturally, their analysis will always be one-sided. Of course, we cannot expect anybody to criticise one's own event. Therefore, it is perfectly fine if they term it as a people's revolution. But when the media starts using the same nomenclature, it becomes important to dissect it as to whether there is any difference between a revolution and an agitation. Revolution has a wider goal. It is a long drawn-out affair. Agitations have limited goals. The pattern in which people attach themselves to these decides whether it is a “phenomenon” or merely an “incident”.   

 

Hazare's fast should be seen in this context. It will then be easier to decide whether it was a phenomenon or incident or agitation or movement or for that matter revolution. There was no hazard or risk involved, so people participated in large numbers. People who have witnessed or studied some of the revolutions and movements post-Independence can tell you that Hazare's fast cannot be termed as a movement or revolution. At the most, it can be termed as a phenomenon that caught the people's imagination. Quite a few of them were treating it as merely a picnic and were seen loafing around. All the risks that an average movement or revolution carries were missing by a furlong. If there were hazards involved, we wouldn't have seen what we did at Jantar Mantar. The fast was imitated in other parts of India too. People raised slogans to protest against the government and support the fast. This gives a glimpse of how passions were simmering. But it is not enough for a movement or revolution. Hazare himself refrained from calling it so. He just sat on fast to demand a legislation.

 

The stage he was sitting on had a banner in the background that read “Indefinite Fast for Jan Lokpal bill”. Ironically, both the organisers and the media were terming it as a “fast unto death”. They could have known the difference between 'indefinite fast' and 'fast unto death'. An indefinite fast has an option of breaking it. In fact, it is sort of a prerogative. In contrast, fast unto death is a different ball game. Here, the person concerned takes a vow to die if his or her demands are not met. In fast unto death, lots of people have lost their lives even after the Independence movement era. Why Hazare conveniently forgot this difference is perplexing. The way this agitation or protest was propped up by the media as a movement or revolution has in fact raised the question on the very meaning of it. Why is an agitation being termed a movement? Is it because there is a need for revolution? So does that mean every agitation will be termed as a movement or revolution? 

 

This agitation is for a demand on which the government has dilly-dallied for four decades. Lokpal should be formed. And it should be empowered enough to rein in corruption. But it is wrong to believe that this will weed out corruption altogether. Any law, no matter how stringent or effective, will never be able to change the system as a whole. Of course I don't say there is no need for a stringent law on corruption. Every citizen has the right to know why Lokpal has not been constituted. People asserted this right by coming out on the streets. 

 

Anna's detractors are calling his agitation blackmail. This includes three important newspapers in English. The columnists in these papers have called 'indefinite fast' unnecessary for a constitutional democracy. So a hungers trike against an elected government has been described as blackmail. But this argument is as one-sided as the other one by the organisers claim that the law will cleanse our democracy of corruption. It is beyond argument that Anna's goals are credible. His ways are non-violent and hence democratic. But the argument does not stop here. The question is about the entire system. The system that gives rise to corruption and other issues cannot be dealt with merely through a law. This is the lesson to be learnt.