IAC at San Francisco, August 18, 2011. Photo Courtesy Amit Kumar
Given the recent developments, it was difficult to avoid commenting on the India Against Corruption (IAC) campaign led by Anna Hazare. Let me clarify at the onset that I don’t support Anna’s version of the Jan Lokpal Bill and the intransigent campaign through which he seeks to get the proposal implemented. However, I support the shunning of the “kuch nahi ho sakta” (nothing can be done) attitude in India. IAC campaign may be labelled as undemocratic by some and dangerous by others. Many had observed during the first round of protests in April that the Anna fever would die down once the IPL fever gains momentum. People participating in the candle light and street marches may be labelled as “posing for the camera” protestors. Only a handful of the supporters can make an honest claim to have read the proposed bill. Nevertheless, it is a protest against the government and its unpopular policies. It is naïve to refer to these protests as India’s Arab Spring (simply unfair to the protestors in the Middle East). The protests in India may appear unintelligent and may not offer a desirable solution, but it’s heartening to see mobilization for a cause that is unifying rather than protests for separate statehood or reservation for particular groups. Anna does not speak for all Indians (there are many outside the government and Congress who don’t support him) but his supporters (we can argue about the numbers) identify themselves as Indians and not as Jats or Gujjars or natives of Telangana or Kashmiris!
However, intellectual analysis has a great way of creating and assigning categories. Since these supporters defied regional, religious or caste categories, analysts have come up with another frequently used classification of the middle class. Manu Joseph’s recent piece in the New York Times titled “India’s selective rage over corruption” hinges on the middle class argument. Similarly, Mihir S. Sharma writing in the Indian Express observes, “When middle classes yearn for such causes, run like hell. When they mobilise, take cover. For their concern rarely extends beyond their own interest.”
For the global audience, stories about India’s middle class are projected as inspiring. There are numerous books and movies narrating how the slum dwellers or young people from challenged economic backgrounds struggle to afford the middle class lifestyle. Yet among many Indian sociologists and intellectuals, middle class is a dirty word. And Anna’s movement is devoid of any credibility simply because the supporters are middle class. The middle class is criticized for spending lavishly at weddings when many people in India are starving, for living in gated communities in the metropolis to avoid mixing with classes on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, and demanding that the government act against corruption while indulging in tax evasions. The middle class in India, much like any other class anywhere in the world, has several shortcomings but the sense of cynicism associated with whatever the middle class does is disturbing. It is important to remember that the middle class is not merely the small business owners who enjoy hereditary wealth but also constitute a huge salaried professional class who struggle through several years and also have no option but to pay their taxes in full. The argument that the middle class, who enjoy coffee breaks at Barista and visit Singapore for holidays, don’t have the moral right or requisite qualifications for initiating or supporting social causes is dubious.
To expect that a completely virtuous middle class alone has the right to fight corruption is an over-arching moral argument. The middle class is criticized for not thinking beyond their class interests – a highly simplistic view. India has numerous social entrepreneurs and philanthropists who belong to the middle class. Though this group may not be devoid of feelings of self-interest, does it make sense to demand absolute levels of altruism from a particular class?
Sense of utter cynicism in India has prevented meaningful mobilization for social causes. Politicians are corrupt and can’t provide leadership; the middle class is enjoying the fruits of economic liberalization so they can’t genuinely represent wider social causes; media is funded by corporations and hence biased; intellectuals are elitist; the poor are disadvantaged to lead/participate in mass movements for social change. Are we looking for some divine intervention to set things right?
Arguing against Jan Lokpal Bill on the basis of it contents makes complete sense, but discrediting the support for the bill simply because some intellectuals decide to view it as middle class indulgence is unfair.
On the other hand, it would be hugely beneficial for the campaign against corruption if Team Anna’s emphasis on issues rather than positions, and on solutions rather than victories. Anna’s fight against corruption will not be strengthened by a stronger Jan Lokpal, but through addressing corruption at smaller levels. Anna’s movement (which includes all people supporting him on the streets, Facebook and Twitter) will have to lead by example rather than by protest. By treating the politicians as the problem, Team Anna falls in the same trap of generalizing specific attributes to specific classes or groups. The solution requires large-scale structural and institutional reforms in governance, which might adversely impact vested interests at several levels. There is also urgent need to understand and act on instances of corruption at levels of society, not just the middle class or politicians, and invest in remedial measures.
As observed earlier,
Fight against corruption cannot begin with reforming the state practices or political process. It has to begin with a discussion on what constitutes corruption and what are its most unacceptable manifestations. It is pompous to declare that ‘India needs to get rid of corruption’. Some degree of corruption in perception or practice has and will continue to exist in society and state apparatus. Acceptance of this fact can lead to a realistic deliberation on tackling the most adverse dimensions of corruption. Transparency International is correct in observing that corruption “is a matter of degree: there are limits in all cultures beyond which an action becomes corrupt and unacceptable.”
IAC provides a unique opportunity to initiate a discussion for defining this limit. Until such discussion is initiated activists will blame politicians and intellectuals will blame the middle class for prevalence of corruption in India.
