Clearly stung by its experiences in dealing with both yoga guru Baba Ramdev and noted social activist Anna Hazare, the government has decided that it will engage with civil society from a position of strength in the future.
Top government sources also told this newspaper that the government will now tread more cautiously in its dealing
with civil society members given the “gratuitous overreach” displayed by them. Though the government has now hardened its stance, it acknowledges that “reaching out to civil society is part of any democratic government’s obligation to engage with anyone who has something to say on an issue as a stakeholder’’. PM Manmohan Singh himself is of the view that “conciliation rather than confrontation is a useful instrument for a government”, say the sources.
This comes in the backdrop of the government having been perceived to have capitulated to both Baba Ramdev and civil society members led by Mr Hazare in the beginning, only to adopt strong-arm tactics at a later stage. While Baba Ramdev and his followers were ousted from the capital’s Ramlila Gorunds after what the government maintains was his failure to keep his word, Union minister Kapil Sibal too launched a strident attack on Mr Hazare and his team on Tuesday questioning their seriousness about drafting the contentious Lokpal bill.
As the war of words between the government and civil society continued on Tuesday, top sources said on Tuesday: “How can the government be held responsible for civil society’s overreach? How can the government be held responsible for the bad language used by Hazare’s team members or the written assurance that was given by Baba Ramdev’s close aide?”
What about the perception that a worried government besieged by corruption scams had bent backwards to reach out to both Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare, both of whom have donned the mantle of anti-corruption crusaders? A top government official maintained that the engagement with these two leaders was “part of the exercise to engage with persons who have support in society on an issue and the basic obligation of any government”.
Emphasising that the government was keen to “accommodate different voices and society’s expectations particularly in a fractured polity”, sources added, “it is the basic obligation of any democratic government”.