There Are Some Things That Anna Hazare Won't Do

Last week, Anna Hazare ended his fast-unto-death he had undertaken to see that the Jan Lokpal Bill was ratified by the Indian government. The movement gathered momentum rapidly as 150 others joined his fast within the span of a few days while thousands gathered in Mumbai to show their support for him. When this incident was first telecast, it rang a bell, regrettably a muffled one. Where had I heard this man's name before? Ah, yes, in matters relating to the small and once-impoverished village of Ralegan Siddhi in Maharashtra.

Taking up residence in this village after serving with the Indian Army, Anna proceeded to reorganize the local councils towards building up the settlement into a model village, soon uprooting alcoholism, inducting the watershed development program, promoting milk production, hiking literacy levels, abolishing untouchability, introducing collective marriages and setting up the Gram Sabha. However, I soon realized that that was not when I'd first heard of him. While his protest in 2011 may have been the first massively popular one, it was not the first time he proved to be the proverbial thorn in the side of the India judiciary.

Many of the avenues of reform the Right To Information Act (2005) awards the commons owe their existence as well as reliability to Anna Hazare. First individually enacted by state governments, the RTI Act was most prevalently used in the states of New Delhi and Maharashtra; in the latter, the act was amended to make it more intransigent after being prodded by Anna. Subsequently, this amendment set the basis for the adoption of the Act on a nationwide scale by the government at the centre. Further, on July 20, 2006, the Union Cabinet moved to exclude the file notings of government officials from its purview, against which Anna again fasted (successfully) from August 9 to 19, 2006.

[caption id="attachment_948" align="aligncenter" width="448" caption="Action strata of the RTI Act (2005)"][/caption]

On that day four years ago, thousands did not gather around him. On that day, 150 others did not join his fast. On that day, the issue was just as pertinent as it is today, so what has changed? Just because Facebook and Twitter notified millions of users around the world about Anna's initiative does not mean that the quantum of resulting change was greater; it was not. While the government did move faster than it would have had just one man been fasting, the protests in 2011 went down only different in one way than its previous counterparts: attention. Attention to the Jan Lokpal Bill was garnered faster. Now that more people know it exists, more people are going to have one less excuse than yesterday to fight corruption. As for how many of us are fighting corruption: that's the number that has to change.

For any government to function as one, the body that creates the law must be completely and mutually excluded from the body that enforces the law (the ratification of the Bill will ensure just that, albeit being most efficacious in settling all disputes necessitated by government officials resorting to corrupt methods). At the same time, together with that distinction, we, the people, must understand the need for and the purpose for that law for the simple reason that even if one of us decides to hold a candle and gather under the Gateway of India, we are not championing anything. The rewards of a Pyrrhic victory do not and never have extended to beyond the battlefield.

Consider this example: in a hypothetical country, a law is enforced that nobody must spit in public, and if they do, they will have to serve one month in prison and pay a fine of $1,000. In the same country, it is found that even before the law was realized, the citizens never did spit in public. Does that make the law redundant? Not at all because it could be used to curb future cases of misdemeanour. Does that mean the law was late in the coming? No. There were no such cases registered to necessitate the law in the first place. In much the same way, the Jan Lokpal Bill only lessens the number of steps a victim must take to right a wrong done him; it does not automatically keep all offenders from continuing to be offensive. The firearm has only been loaded, and irrespective of whether or not you held a candle up to the muzzle, the object is useless if it is never fired.

Anna Hazare is famous. Anna Hazare is familiar with the machinations of the Indian judiciary. Anna Hazare is old and definitely not as tech-savvy as the dominant generation. Anna Hazare is a Gandhian. As a result of all these factors, he undertook a fast-unto-death to instigate any action towards the eradication of corruption. I am not famous. I am not familiar with the machinations of the Indian judiciary. I am not old and am definitely more tech-savvy than the previous generation. I am not a Gandhian. If I undertake a fast-unto-death, I'll get lynched into the nearest GH. When the Annas of the nation are not fasting, who do I hold a candle up to? Or do I learn more about the ways in which I am being offended and then try to fight those systems?

While what Anna is fighting for is worth everybody's time and effort, who is going to fight your fights? Who is going to fight for complete and free access to the sector-wise power consumption data held by the government so you are better equipped to utilize a source of renewable energy? Who is going to fight the superstore at the street's entrance that dumps tons of garbage in front of your house and forces the  school van to take a delay-causing detour? Who is going to fight the union of autorickshaw drivers from spiking up their prices at rates disproportionate to the climbing petrol prices? Who is going to fight the local police inspector who refuses to enforce the High Court's ruling to evacuate all street-side vendors (simply to keep from reducing his share of the kickbacks) despite being threatened with the severe charge of contempt-of-court?

Anna Hazare?