For the first time, the UPA government, after floundering for an apt response to the challenge thrown by Anna Hazare and his team members, has come up with a political counter-move. So far the government — in reality the Congress — has advanced either narrow technical arguments or spoken in generalities or taken a series of missteps, ranging from disallowing a hungerstrike to foolishly arresting Mr Hazare and taking him to Tihar Jail, thus further enhancing a frail old man’s martyrdom appeal. The crowds have only increased, the pitch of the protest only getting louder.

Bringing in Pranab Mukherjee, the party’s man for all seasons, shows there is recognition that this crisis requires a politician of the old school, not a technocrat who can make a PowerPoint presentation or speak well on television. There is no guarantee that this move will necessarily pay off, especially since the Anna camp is already coming up with newer objections (“want assurances in writing”, etc), but at least the party recognises that sager political minds are required now.
For, when all is said and done, this entire agitation is about politics.
No matter what the driven and righteous Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi say, no matter the fine technical points offered by Prashant Bhushan and notwithstanding the fashion-conscious hordes who want nothing to do with politics or politicians; politics is at the heart of the Anna Hazare crusade.
The deep antipathy towards the Congress has of course played a part. The Bhushans are veteran socialists and it is now clear that the Sangh Parivar has sent out its cadre to boost the crowds. This combination has worked together in the past, first in the early and mid-1970s with Jayaprakash Narayan and then with V.P. Singh in the 1980s (both also sit together in the government in Bihar.)
But this is politics of a more fundamental kind. Here the protest leaders, who comprise the strategic team of the movement, have a clear-eyed vision of what they want. The Jan Lokpal Bill is of course the immediate objective, but it is not the only one.
They will not stop at merely getting their version of the bill passed, assuming it passes muster in Parliament, which may or may not happen. The ultimate goal is much, much bigger.
Some clues are visible in the statements that have been made. The contempt that Team Anna has for Parliament is fairly visible in all the talk of “people power” being bigger than the legislature.
But now we are also hearing about the need for a referendum and for direct, participatory democracy. The message coming through is this: the parliamentary system is slow and compromised; politicians are venal and corrupt; therefore, not only do they need to be supervised by a large, extra constitutional bureaucracy but should also bow to “people power” as expressed by street protests, petitions etc. As for the Constitution — well, it is no longer a relevant document and can be amended.
Such ideas are hardly new. In the 1970s, JP spoke of “Total Democracy” which rested on small administrative units all over the country which would be self-sufficient and autonomous and would run the country.
The Centre, he argued, was there only to intercede in the bigger matters. Many of his well-wishers warned him that nothing should be done to side-step the Constitution, but he even called out for soldiers to lay down their arms.
Strangely, a similar idea had been proposed by Gen. Ayub Khan in Pakistan in 1960. “Basic democracy”, as it was called, envisaged the setting up of local self-governing bodies that would conduct local affairs. A national referendum was held that “chose” him as the President.
There are of course differences between those ideas and the current agitation, but the basic premise is similar; the Constitution is not supreme and its legislative expression, Parliament, cannot be seen as the will of the people. Instead, the country shall be administered by a group of wise men and women, of unimpeachable character (Magsaysay winners, for example).
Many intellectuals and analysts have been pointing this out for some time but their voices get lost in the din.
But now the dalits and Muslims have fully grasped what this agitation means. If carried through to its logical conclusion, it will take away even the few protections they have under our fine Constitution. They have spotted the upper caste, communal thrust to the anti-corruption crusade and have stayed away from it. This is the “war of the comfortable” who want to keep the marginal elements out of India’s expanding economic pie. Creating a monster that will be judge, jury and executioner will be one step — a big one, but just one — towards that goal.
An astute politician like Mr Mukherjee, with his vast experience and sense of history is someone who is expected to fully understand the implications and goals of this crusade.
Gradually, the tide of public opinion is turning against the inflexible protest leaders. Political parties too are wary of the Jan Lokpal Bill. It will still be a long haul and the government will have to play it carefully, but the endgame has begun.