Cynicism, Wikipedia tells us, “refers to the beliefs of an ancient school of Greek philosophers known as the Cynics. Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of virtue in agreement with nature. This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health and fame, and by living a simple life free from all possessions”.

It is a term that has been freely bandied about in recent days. In modern usage, cynics are people who scoff at things and express doubt that anything worthwhile will happen. So those who asked questions of the anti-corruption crusade of Anna Hazare and his brigade were immediately dismissed as being cynical. The implication was that they were unconvinced about the genuineness of not only the campaign but also of Mr Hazare himself. Barely hidden beneath that dismissal of their views was the notion that they somehow were on the side of the corrupt, or at least were not as angry with corruption as the rest of the country. Basically it amounted to “if you are not with the campaign you are happy with the status quo”. On a personal note I can say that many people called me that (and several other unprintable things) for comments I made on social networking sites and during television discussions on the subject.
If anyone does fit the classical description of a follower of the cynicism school it is Mr Hazare himself. We must presume that he is free of all desires for wealth, power and fame and his zeal for cleaning up the system is totally selfless. His many followers will undoubtedly agree with this definition.
Yet, perhaps, one could also make a case that he has displayed a cynical attitude in other, more conventional ways too. Consider his views on the masses of India. In one casual sweep of the hand, he dismisses the multitudes as ignorant and even corrupt. When asked if he would stand for elections, he said he wouldn’t because he would just end up losing his deposit. The voters can be bought off with liquor and gifts and he did not have the wherewithal to do so. Thus, in his worldview, voters (the aam janata) were a greedy bunch of people who would vote for a candidate on the basis of the cash they got.
To my mind this is an exceptionally offensive statement. It not only shows crass ignorance of complex political processes but also flies in the face of the facts. Time and again, voters have shown immense maturity and sagacity, voting in or out entire governments on the basis of their performance. When Indira Gandhi lifted the Emergency and went to the people, they threw her out because they were angry with her subversion of democracy. Less than two years later, they voted her back in because they saw the alternative was even worse.
There are no dearth of examples of strong candidates losing and hopeless candidates winning because of the collective decision taken by voters. To think that the countless millions who queue up in the hot sun to cast their vote are there because of the kitchen gadgets they got from political parties is ridiculous. In all the election rounds in Kerala, Assam, Tamil Nadu and now West Bengal, we have seen over 70 per cent turnouts; could all of them have been under the influence of party-sponsored liquor?
And yet, those who pointed this out as well as raised doubts about other aspects of the anti-corruption crusade or the Jan Lokpal Bill or indeed the inclusion of a father and son team on the panel as representatives of “civil society” were dubbed as cynics. It was as if they were the naysayers who stood for a corrupt system while Don Quixotes were out there trying to bring down the evil giants who were pretending to be windmills. A very romantic image, no doubt, but completely off the mark.
Dismissing those who ask important question as “pro-establishment” or “vested interests” is an old trick deployed by the causerati who see themselves as the conscience keepers of the world. NGOs, activists and now those who show their support by posting Tweets see everything as a “them and us” mode. Their dedication to their favourite cause blinds them to everything else. They chafe at any questions being asked. I once recall interviewing a young film-maker who had made a documentary about Bombay’s slums; in the middle, she just stood up and walked off, claiming that the issue (and her belief in it) was not open to questions. Self-righteousness is a handy attribute to have when one is so committed to a cause. The easiest way to go after anyone who shows another side to the story is to label him/her “cynical”. This is negativist thinking.
In this age of hyper media, especially 24/7 television channels, which see issues in a simplistic black and white way, critical thinking takes a back seat. Which is why the so-called cynics cannot be heard above the din. Now that the dust has settled down, the celebrities have gone home and the media has moved on to other things, let the questions begin.

Sidharth Bhatia is a senior journalist and commentator on current affairs based in Mumbai