Anti-graft movement turned into a struggle for democratic rights
It is interesting to observe that till yesterday, the man who was sought to be limited as merely an anti-graft crusader, changed overnight into a champion of democratic rights who is being compared to, among others, the Burmese Nobel peace prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.
The metamorphosis of the anti-graft struggle to a democratic rights movement makes interesting reading, if one scrutinises the ups and downs leading to Anna’s Hazare’s arrest and release.
When the civil rights activist ended his fast at Jantar Mantar last April, none of his supporters thought he would have to return to the same spot with the same demand - a strong Lokpal Bill. The reason, India Against Corruption (IAC), the organisation which drafted a pro-people Jan Lokpal Bill and spearheaded the April agitation led by Anna, came out empty handed from the Joint Drafting Committee of civil society and the government.
By June end, Team Anna had to declare its intention of starting another phase of struggle. While ending his April fast, Anna had warned the government that in the event of government failing to enact a strong Lokpal Bill by August 15, 2011, he would resume his fast from the very next day, August 16.
IAC applied on July 16 for police permission to launch the second round of indefinite fast by Anna, starting August 16. But the police was not ready to respond quickly to an application that had been submitted one month ahead of the proposed fast.
Finally, the police allowed Hazare to sit on a fast at Jantar Mantar, but not for more thana day as Parliament would be in session and a series of demonstrations were scheduled at the same venue. IAC was asked to suggest a different venue. When they opted to hold the protest at Ramlila Grounds, it was turned down on the same grounds.
There has been no precedence of denying permission for a fast at the chosen venue? Was it justified? Angry Kiran Bedi, Anna’s supporter, fumes: “No! The decision was not at all administrative, it was political.” She says that it has never happened in the country’s history.
If we go by the war of words between the government and Team Anna during the drafting of the Lokpal Bill, it appears there must be truth in the allegation of Team Anna that the government was afraid of Anna’s popular support and did not want him to repeat the performance.
The allegations of anti-graft activists gained further strength when the police permitted Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar to hold a sit-in-protest at Jantar Mantar, the very venue denied to Anna, to demand a “people friendly” land acquisition bill.
Police agenda
Obviously, the police had two things on their agenda; first, it did not want to give Team Anna time to mobilise the people. Second, it must have intended to send them to a place not easily accessible to the people. So, the police decision was delayed till August 10.
Ultimately, both sides zeroed in on Jaiprakash Narain park near Rajghat. But, the Police immediately put 22 conditions, citing a Supreme Court ruling aimed at ensuring that no inconvenience is caused to general public by such activities.
Senior advocate and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) activist N D Pancholi has been an opponent of Anna’s movement. But he too is critical of the Police saying, “Our Constitution has guaranteed the right to protest. Only condition is that it should be peaceful. If there is apprehension of violence, the police can deny permission. In this case, there was no possibility of violence.”
And Anna’s reply was natural. Like a true Gandhian, he appealed to the people to defy the police. Anna’s subsequent arrest under the pretext of ‘preventive detention’ mobilised a public resistence as never before, with political parties rallying behind him though they have reservations about his version of Lokpal.
Deccan Herald is on WhatsApp Channels | Join now for Breaking News & Editor's Picks