[Reader-list] joint stament on Anna hazare mobilisation

[asit das]

*A Great Opportunity, A Serious Danger*

*The Anna Hazare situation invites two common reactions: many dismiss it as
a middle class driven "urban picnic"; and others, notably the mainstream
media, describe it as just short of a revolutionary movement to establish
"people's power." *The same divide exists among progressives

and those concerned with social change. Strategies differ on the basis of
where one stands on this

divide. *The problem, however, is that neither of these reactions fully
reflects the reality of what is happening.*

We note that our position below is focused on what can be done in this
situation, and is not meant to excuse or defend the government. We condemn
the brutal, corrupt and anti-democratic actions of the

UPA; we also, it must be noted, condemn the actions of the BJP and its State
governments in trying to portray themselves as crusaders against corruption.
The dangerous Lokpal Bill that has been presented must be withdrawn, and, as
said below, a process initiated for effective institutions of people's
control

that can be used to defeat corruption. We issue this statement precisely to
caution against erroneous tactics that are strengthening the very state that
we must fight against.

*The Opportunity*

It is true that the protests so far have been dominated by middle classes,
and that they have been

exaggerated by the media. But this does not mean that this process becomes
meaningless.

*Precisely because there is no strong organised movement among the working
class at the national level, no alternative media, and no consciously
projected alternative to the existing system, a hyped up*

*middle class movement can easily grow into something much larger. *

We can already see that happening, as protests are spreading and
diversifying in terms of their mass base. People's anger at this system and
at the corrupt nature of the Indian state is hardly a middle class
phenomenon alone.

For that reason, we cannot and should not dismiss this situation. The more
people are willing to see this system for what it is, and to express their
anger and disgust with it, the more there is an opportunity to expose it and
fight for something new. A crisis is an opportunity for those who are
fighting for change.

*Therefore we cannot agree with those who look at these protests and hunger
strikes and see in them a "blackmailing" of Parliament. Parliamentary
democracy in this country has never been more than a very limited space.
Even this space has been rendered meaningless in recent decades,*

*by precisely the forces who today are shouting about its virtues.*

For instance, the SEZ Act was passed after barely a day's debate in
Parliament. Economic reforms were introduced through stealth, FDI in retail
is on the verge of being approved, and the UID project is going

ahead - all without a whisper of Parliamentary approval. It is correct to be
cynical of neoliberal procorporate leaders when they suddenly discover that
Parliament is a sacrosanct institution.

*When people* *feel that the system is rotten to the core, we should not
attempt to dilute that reality by saying* *that Parliament will deal with
the problem.* The danger is not to Parliament; it lies elsewhere.

*The Danger*

The fact that people are angry is an opportunity. But it is also a risk,
because that anger can be channeled in ways that actually strengthen the
existing power structure. In this case, consider:

• The message being conveyed about these protests - the tactics of the
leadership notwithstanding

- is that of support to Anna Hazare and his "Team Anna." Beyond the concept
of "transparency",

the public campaign does not engage at all with the idea of a democratic
organisation of the

people (as opposed to one "*supported*" by the people). As such, this raises
the question of whether those participating are being asked to fight to
build people's power, or whether they are fighting to increase the power of
the "good leader."

• The demand of the campaign too is not about, even in a minimal sense,
democratising the Indian state or society. The Jan Lokpal being sought may
address some types of corruption, or it may not do so; but it is not
intended to give people any greater control over the state. It is projected
as effective not because it will be democratic, but because it will be
powerful, because it will stand "above" democracy and politics itself. Just
as Anna is a good person who deserves

support, so the Jan Lokpal will consist of good people who deserve power,
and who will use it to "cleanse" the state.

• Most of those joining these protests are doing so on the basis of media
coverage. In practically

all areas (with one or two exceptions) the mobilisation lacks any core
organisation. At most

there are ad hoc groups of urban elites; but in large measure, the place of
the organisation has

been filled by the mainstream media itself. All the ideas sought to be
communicated are therefore seen through the lenses that the media applies to
them.

*As a result, even where* *elements in the leadership try to talk of popular
struggle and democratic principles, they* *are overridden by an overwhelming
focus on attacking the current power holders and*

*replacing them with an even more powerful, more "clean" institution.*

The net result of all this is that "corruption" becomes defined very
narrowly, as the taking of benefit in violation of the law. *The ultimate
message of this movement is: trust the rules, trust the state, trust* *the
Lokpal; what matters is finding the right leaders and having faith in them.
This is the*

*message that is sent by the mobilising instrument, the media, regardless of
what the leaders may actually say.*

This is not only not a democratic message, it is an anti-democratic one. At
this moment, in India, it is also dangerous. *Brutality, injustice and
oppression in this country is not a result of violation of the*

*law alone. Indeed, much of it happens **because **of the law in the first
place. We have a state machinery which has brazenly shown itself to be the
servant of predatory private capital. *This is**

the biggest reason for the current boom in corruption: the enormous money
generated through superprofits that is then used to purchase the state and
generate more superprofits. Sometimes this is exposed as violating some law
and gets called a "scam"; but at other times, as in most economic reforms,
it simply changes the law. The SEZ Act is again a good example. It triggered
a wave of land grabbing across the country, which was only slowed by the
global economic crisis; but there was nothing "corrupt" in the Lokpal sense
about most SEZ-related actions. Our people are being crushed by a cycle of
intensifying capitalist exploitation and repression. Can this be stopped by
good leaders with

the right powers?

Many would answer "Obviously not; a Jan Lokpal cannot address everything."
This may be true, but that is not the message actually being sent out.
Rather the message is that Lokpal-style solutions and Anna Hazare-style
"good leaders" are the answers to people's anger at injustice. When the
leadership,

Ramdev-style, starts adding on a laundry list of additional issues to its
demands - as land acquisition has recently been added - it reinforces this
dangerous message.

*Thus this movement not only does* *not weaken the state; implicitly,
through the message it sends, it builds people's support for* *making the
state and its leadership more powerful. *This of course the reason that it
attracts support

from everyone from Jindal Aluminium to the RSS.

*What Can Be Done*

The mere fact that people are protesting against the government does not
mean that they are fighting the state. The Indian state certainly has little
to fear - as a state - from a mobilisation whose prime message is that
change happens through good leaders. The current power holders are resisting
the threat to their position, but the system itself is not under threat.
Indeed, the danger is not to the state or its institutions, but to efforts
at deeper social change in this society.

*The dilemma of the current situation cannot be answered by simply joining
wholeheartedly, or by withdrawing in silence.*

Some have declared support for the current movement, while seeking to push
it to take up other issues. The sympathies of some in the leadership for
left and progressive positions is often cited. But the main engines of these
protests - the media and urban elite circles - are actively opposed to any
such positions. *One has simply to imagine what will happen if this
mobilisation does begin to turn* *towards a more radical stance: the media
will instantly change its position from "Anna is India"*

*to "Anna is a power crazed megalomaniac", confusion, slanders and
disinformation will start, and the movement will collapse. *Given this
reality, simply joining at this stage will be* *counterproductive. People
will no longer be able to distinguish between forces who fight for
social* *transformation
and those who are upholding the current system; and when the latter fail,
they will take* *down the former with them.* *But to remain silent is to be
irrelevant at an important time. It is also important not to fall into the
trap* *of those who, in their criticism of the anti-democratic tendencies of
this movement, start defending the* *existing state. In our view
parliamentary supremacy is not and cannot be the slogan of those who
seek* *social
change.**

*What is required therefore is an approach built on two realities. *The
first is that the current explosion of scams is a direct result of
neoliberal policies that have converted the state into the arm of a
particularly predatory, criminal form of big capital. Today the real face of
the state is more apparent then ever before, and corruption is one glaring
sign of it. *Therefore, to try to fight corruption*

*without fighting for true people's power over the economy and society is
impossible. *Therefore, our demands must at present focus on building such
people's power over the institutions of the state.

The second reality is that the current atmosphere of anger and suspicion of
the state offers a chance to raise precisely these issues and to make the
link between corruption and the system under which we live. *The more
political forces, mass organisations and people's struggles do this, while
keeping*

*their identity separate from 'India Against Corruption', the more it will
be possible to use this opportunity to build and expand radical struggles. *If
people can see the system is rotten, that can be* *developed that into an
awareness that this rottenness goes far deeper than mere corruption and**

dishonest leaders. That is the challenge of this moment.

*(all signatures are in individual capacity, additional signatures welcome)*

Abhay Shukla, Pune

Arvind Ghosh, Nagpur

Asit Das, POSCO Pratirodh Solidarity, Delhi

Bijay-bhai, Adivasi Mukti Sanghatan

Biju Mathew, Mining Zone People's Solidarity Group

C.R. Bijoy, Coimbatore

Kiran Shaheen, Journalist

Pothik Ghosh, Radical Notes

Pratyush Chandra, Radical Notes

Ravi Kumar, Dept of Sociology, South Asian University

Shankar Gopalakrishnan, Campaign for Survival and Dignity

Shiraz Bulsara, Kasthakari Sanghatna

Natarajan D.V., Chennai

Satyen Bordoloi, independent journalist, Mumbai

Bhumika Chauhan, Correspondence and Radical Notes

Rama Paul, Assistant Professor, University of Delhi

Indrani Mukherjee, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University

Amitadyuti Kumar, Vice President, Association for Protection of Democratic
Rights

Daniel Taghioff, Green Party of India

Kundan Kumar

Binu Mathew, Editor, Countercurrents.org

Nayanjyoti, Delhi

Adv. Kamayani Bali, Mumbai

Soumya Dutta, Assistant Professor, University of Delhi

Vipul Kumar, Fergusson College, Pune

Ravi Badri

Saraswati Kavula

Niharika, Researcher, University of Delhi

Snehal Shingavi, Assistant Professor, University of Texas

Sirisha Naidu, Sanhati and Mining Zone People's Solidarity Group

Supriya Madangarli, Mumbai

Viveka Sundara, HRA, Mumbai

Sagari Ramdas, Yakshi, Hyderabad

Nityanand Jayaraman, writer and researcher, Chennai

Madhumita Dutta, Chennai

Dulali Nag, Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management,
Calcutta

Wilfred D., INSAF

N.K. Jeet, Lawyers for Justice and Democratic Rights, Punjab

Shriya Bhatia, Mumbai

Jagdish Chandra, New Socialist Alternative

Ankur Tamuli Phukan, Researcher, CSSS, Kolkata

Shree Prakash

Ashwini Chhatre, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign

Deepti Nair, Hyderabad

Sudha Bharadwaj, Raipur

Ashok Agrwaal, Delhi

Thomas Pallithanam

VP Sarathi, Coimbatore Human Rights Forum

Amit Baishya, Assistant Professor, Ball State University

Shiney Varghese, Minneapolis

Guman Singh, Himachal Pradesh

Soumit Dutt

P. Chennaiah, APVVU

Ajay Kishor Shaw, poet

Anil Sadgopal, Member, Presidium, All India Forum for Right to Education

Bhupesh Shah

Sayantoni Datta, Researcher, New Delhi

Neshat Quaiser, Assistant Professor, Jamia Millia Islamia

PK Sundaram, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace

Mayur Chetia, Research Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University

Anivar Aravind, Bangalore

B.S. Raju

Surya Shankar Dash, Filmmaker, Bhubaneshwar

Suddha Reddey, Socialist Activist, Bangalore

Ranjeet kumar Thakur, socialist Activist, Delhi