Open Forum
New Delhi,
15 January 2015
Delhi Battle Royal
PM MODI VS KEJRIWAL
Dr. S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Without naming anybody directly, the
BJP’s star campaigner for Delhi Assembly elections, the Prime Minister, made a
veiled reference to AAP leader, Arvind Kejriwal, as an “anarchist”. Stating, that
anarchists have no place in Delhi, and that they
should “go to jungles and join Naxals”, Modi reminded the Delhi electorate that what they want is development
and not dharnas.
Notably, Modi claimed that the
BJP is good at providing good governance and the AAP Party is good in
organizing dharnas thus presenting
clear alternatives before the voters. Street level politics in the form of dharnas and demonstrations, direct
action in defiance of law are equated with anarchism read not the anarchist
political philosophy as we have learnt from textbooks, but its practical association
with unruly lawless political behaviour in popular common man’s conception.
Recall Kejriwal had remarked “Yes,
I am an anarchist”, when he was Chief Minister of Delhi, perhaps irritated by frequent remarks
of his political opponents. He was
inviting people of Delhi to join
his protest defying police orders in the heart of Delhi as his demand for the
suspension of three police officers who refused to carry out the orders of his
Ministers to make some arrests were not accepted. Pertinently, he could not
wait for the findings of enquiries ordered by the Union Home Ministry under
which the Delhi Police is placed. His assertion instantly became a quote for his
AAP’s opponents.
Reacting to the direct attack of
the Prime Minister, Kejriwal who in fact is a self-identified anarchist, chose to read in this a favourable
point of lack of any substantive
criticism of his 49-day governance. He retorted that, “We know
how to protest as well as to govern”.
It seems that the electoral
battle in Delhi
is being shaped to centre around “anarchism” and “development”. Importantly,
this issue, framed in the course of emotional politics and war of words has not
weighed their full import.
In
the context of political developments, it is necessary to be clear about
Kejriwal’s type of anarchism. He is
certainly not an anarchist of conventional text-book type. He believes in forming a political party, contesting
elections under our Constitution and winning seats and forming the Government. His Party, one must remember, was born out of
a social movement. In fact, there are
many types of anarchism as there are many schools within other political
philosophies like liberalism, communism, socialism, feminism, etc.
The Greek term “anarchia” (from which
the English “anarchism” is derived), denotes
“non-rule” or “without ruler”, and implies complete freedom of man from any
kind of authority. Anarchism is defined
by Coker as “the doctrine that political authority in any of its forms is
unnecessary and undesirable”.
Confirmed anarchists of modern
times like Godwin and Proudhon opposed political authority as well as private
property. Proudhon’s famous statement
that “property is theft” portrays succinctly his anarchist views. To him,
anarchy is order and not disorder, and
political authority is enemy of justice, reason, and fair deal. C.E.M. Joad wanted to remove the burden of not only
political but also religious authority. H.D.Thoreau stated that, “that
government is best which governs not at all”.
Two
different types of anarchism have developed – individualist and collectivist. The former is interested in the philosophy
and believes in the rights of man unrestricted by any authority or collective
body. The latter is best represented by
communistic anarchists who formulated clear political and social doctrines. Bakunin declared that eventually political authority, private property, and religion
would disappear. Like him, Kropotkin, advocated replacement of the State, which
is unnatural, by a web of freely functioning groups.
Therefore, the usage of the term
“anarchist” today to refer to a recognized political leader either by the
person himself or by his /her critics is highly inappropriate. Anarchism is detected today in any direct
action, resistance and disobedience to authority, and popular struggle – all of
which contain modes of opposition, but not necessarily violent. Direct action is generally provoked only when
State authorities fail to listen.
The central theme of anarchism
lies in its idea about the State. It stands
for the abolition of the State and creation of a stateless society. It rejects
all kinds of authority that interferes with the spontaneous actions and
associations of individuals.
Anarchists profess faith in
voluntary autonomous groups. They think
that humans have a natural impulse to cooperate with one another. One cannot fail to mention Gandhiji in this
context who observed that “the nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a
democracy based on non-violence”.
While the philosophical
anarchists preach the method of persuasion, discussions, propaganda, and such peaceful
methods, revolutionary radical anarchists advocate violence, and forcible
changes, and revolt against the State and established order.
Unfortunately, the label
“anarchism”, in popular conception, is
associated with violence and disorder more than with non-violence and peaceful
resistance however progressive their ideas may be. The association is so strong that the terms “anarchism”
and “anarchists” have lost their original meaning.
The
spirit of anarchism represented by Kejriwal and his clan lies limited to direct action, resistance and popular struggle
without violence. It believes in strong direct speech and direct action and not theorizing.
Pertinently, Kejriwal’s action in
defiance of the Electricity Board or campaign for non-payment of water bills
are some forms of radical
direct action. The defence may be
the need for some drastic steps to change the extraordinarily corrupt
mechanisms and their functioning that
pervade the entire gamut of governance.
Arguably, Kejriwal’s spirit of
anarchism is suitable for an NGO and for political Parties sitting in
opposition and not for a party aspiring to form the Government. Modi is adept
in politics as much as in economics to introduce anarchism in election
issues to push through his development agenda.
Those who call Kejriwal an
“anarchist” are unintentionally elevating him to the status of some great
social-political thinkers. All that he
wants and works for is clean
governance, eradication of
corruption and dynastic rule, and security for all people. His experiments in direct democracy within his short tenure by introducing Mohalla Sabhas and convening people’s assemblies (Darbar) are to some people unacceptable and bound to fail in the prevailing political scenario.
Naturally, they look radical and
even anarchic even though they are not alternative institutions to replace the
system of parliamentary democracy. There is a vast difference between creating
anarchy and anarchist position which may be conveniently overlooked in
political contests to confuse the voters.
Undoubtedly, this
is not the first time that the term “anarchist” is being loosely used in Indian
politics. Without implying any comparison which may sound ridiculous, we may
recall how hostile we generally are towards radical thinkers in our society. Jayaprakash Narayan was considered an
anarchist, but he advocated partyless democracy and not a stateless
society. He wanted to build a democratic
system that was direct, near, and popular.
He worked for a “civil-political society” in the place of
“political-civil society” that had engulfed the entire social order.
Much of Kejriwal’s uncommon
politics and governance like holding Assembly in the open grounds and clearing
official work while sitting on “dharna” certainly created
sensational news but could not establish a civil-political
society. If he is in politics he has to play politics. So far, his
over-enthusiasm has cost him dearly – a factor that will always be exploited by
his rivals. Whether Kejriwal’s brand of AAP politics emerges successful the Delhi’s ballot boxes will
decide on 10 February. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|