(जनलोकपाल की मांग से शुरू हुआ सिविल सोसायटी का आन्दोलन विभिन्न पड़ावों से होता होता हुआ आखिरकार टूट-बिखर कर और एक तरह से नये तरीके से जुट कर एक नए मुकाम पर आ पहुंचा है. तमाम सहमतियों और असहमतियों के बीच इस आन्दोलन ने कुछ सवाल तो खड़े किये ही
हैं. निवेदिता का यह लेख इस सारे मसले को ऐतिहासिक परिप्रेक्ष्य में समझने की कोशिश करता है और कई नए बुनियादी सवाल खड़े करता है. हो सकता है कुछ हिस्सों पर कुछ साथियों की असहमति हो ( मेरी भी हैं ). लेकिन मौजूदा स्थिति पर यह अत्यंत रोचक एवं पठनीय टिप्पणी है.)
For or the last few days, there have been many discussion in on the subject politics Vs popular movement. Of course, inspiratin behind this is Arwind Kejriwals’ decision to go political and the amritwani of Anna sahib (“rajneeti gandi cheez hai. Isse desh ka udhhar nahi ho sakta. Bhrashtachar nahi ruk sakta. Jan-andolan hi sahi rasta hai”).
How innocent! As far as understanding goes, any system meant for regulating, institutionalizing and leading the collective behavior of a society is politics or rajneeti, irrespective of the fact whether the same is implemented by Monarchs, clergy, small political communities or by political leaders. Even Anna’s ideology of publicly beating somebody for any social sins or banning TVs etc in the village is Rajneeti if given legal sanction. So how can Bhrashtachar be combated without rajneeti! Even for publicly beating or hanging of bhashtacharis, legal sanction is required. Law is required. How will it be possible without rajneeti? Or do the intellectuals believe that even law is not required for this! Just collect crowd of some thousand, raise some demand and get it implemented themselves. What an idea!
In this connection, observations of some intellectuals and political parties are also noteworthy according to which that Kejriwal was exposed and Anna is seedha sada person misguided by others. Does it mean that implementing policies without legality is ok and forming political party is a sin? At least Kejriwal and his co. have accepted the responsibilities of fighting challenges of public life by being accountable to the public. If hardcore criminals and murders can aspire to become PM of the country what is wrong in Kejriwal’s dreaming for the same. Political establishment is not the monopoly of some odd political parties existing as on date. Forming Political party by making corruption the core issue and not inciting communal-castiest sentiment can’t be held as unacceptable.(although I am neither saying nor expecting that Kejriwal and party are doing so or will do so. But their decision to form political party and fight elections should be defended).
In my opinion such reactions rest in the fact that we Indians are completely undemocratic society. We just don’t value democracy because, perhaps, we have got it on platter. In the other parts of the world, the middle class and the newly emerged elite (capitalist) class fought to overthrow the feudal set up of respective nations by invoking miseries and aspirations of common people. But after success they didn’t give any power to them. Common people had to fight separately for their economic/social and political rights. The process took some hundreds years more and by that time, common people had to fights myths propagated by Adam Smiths, Malthuses, Mills and many more. They had to adopt many ways and disciplines of the high class also by shedding age old traditions and beliefs.
But Indian National Movement was more liberal. India became a democratic republic immediately on acquiring political freedom and people here didn’t have to fight separately for this. They take part in governance of the country even though they don’t believe in many laws of the land: such as, those on child marriage, casteism, child labour, dowry, pre-natal sex determination and many more. Noble ideals contained in the preamble of our constitution hardly have any meaning for us. We We are voters and can become candidates for election also even though we indulge in activities like bride burning, ordering public killing of couple marrying outside caste line, openly advocating and participating in casteist/ communal activities and what not. In absence of any economic compulsion, any major desi social movement or any struggle for our rights; we hardly have any reason to give up our feudal ways of living/ thinking. We still believe in raja-praja concept. We are bechari praja and political establishment is mighty raja. So our sole believe is that we have no responsibility towards society, just leave every thing to rajas. We will remain what we are and this is for the rajas to rule us ideally. No surprise that when we ourselves become leaders, bureaucrats or even sarkari sepoys or babus, we consider ourselves nothing less than rajas. We expect lavish life, think ourselves not among common mass and take pride in our status if people come to us again and again for getting their smallest work done.
By above observation I don’t intend to mean that political class is innocent and onus for every thing is on the mass. I am bitter to aam aadmi (read intellectuals) because my sincere believe is that directions of history are decided by masses and not by a few classes. I believe in looking at history or at present from below and not from above. Directions of changes are invariably influenced by the nature of pressure the system receives from different corners. It is not co-incidence that every Chandragupta or Ashoka was preceded by intellectual movements of Gautam Budha, Mahaveer and other thinkers and every Shershah and Akbar were preceded by Kabir and others. Focus of these thinkers was not the ruling class but beliefs and traditions of the entire society of which the ruling class was taking advantage to deny justice to common man. By giving stress on logic and denouncing illogical religious and social practices, they encouraged environment where people were ready to accept changes. Thus it was possible for not so pure people to reach the top (Chandragupta was perhaps not Kshatriya and Shershah or Akbar also made many experiments with the structure of bureaucracy. Merit and social acceptability was the main criteria instead of noble birth). Democracy in Europe was established only when essences of renaissance and reformation movements had penetrated into European society. Even Mahatma Gandhi gave adequate importance to peasants, tribal etc. after seeing and analyzing their aspirations and energy reflected through various such movements already in scene. Anti- un touchability became integral part of Gandhi’s movement only after such movements were actually organized by depressed classes in different parts of the country. In sum, leaders are not all mighty and capable. They too get vision and courage to implement progressive decisions and policies if wind is in this favour or they are pressurized to do so. We all criticize Nehru for not implementing uniform civil code or not acting against religious/ lingual/ social messes adequately but can we imagine how a leadership could act tough on social/ religious matters when it itself was a witness of partition and the massive carnage of 1946-47- unprecedented in human history!
Applying this on present day’s situation, it can hardly be said that we are capable of acting as progressive pressure groups on the system. Both our thoughts and our actions are anti- constitution and against laws of the country. In our every day life, we don’t find anything wrong (when concerns to ourselves) in ill-treating our elders, children and ladies, practicing religious or casteist fanaticism, treating servants like slaves, black marketing or adulteration or breaking all everyday rules. So, is there any surprise if police and in many cases judges’ also react as per popular sentiments on such issues (because they are also ones amongst us and have same sentiments and beliefs like us)? If for any reasons actions are initiated on such issues, we don’t hesitate in bribing the parties to get justice in our favour. In such situation, isn’t it true that overwhelming majority of Indian population will be in jails if laws are implemented with iron hands! It will also be interesting to think if any government will come back to power if it dares to do so! it will be even more interesting if other players in the political establishment do not react agressively and promise to udo everything if voted to power! we have turned our democracy into a playground where victorious is one who exploits people sentiments the most. people's sentiment is the key driver of the system. greatest weapon of status co-ism! thats is why i have elaborated so much on people's sentiments.
The fact is that we are accustomed to live in lawlessness and it really suits us also. So, just denouncing some practices as per our convenience is nothing but wolf-cry. A so- called movement which attacks politics only and never addresses serious ills that plague the society can hardly be termed as social movement. If such movements think that good governance is possible even in socially/ culturally hostile atmosphere, they should come to top, provide such un-corruptible and ideal governance and prove me wrong. If a highly political movement says that politics is untouchable, it’s most unfortunate. It’s not that politicians and leaders of the country have fulfilled their duties. No, they have rather failed the nation. But as far as praja is concerned, it is equally responsible for taking the nation to mess.
( Nivedita )
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें