Skip to content

Three Questions to Friends

August 25, 2011

I have been taking my time to reflect on the positions that have emerged in the fairly polarised debate on the on-going anti-corruption struggle in Delhi. I take very seriously the questions raised by critics on the right-wing inclinations evident in the movement’s leadershi, but I think it is both a strategic mistake and a disawoval of responsibility on the part of those of us on the left of the political spectrum to stay out of it. We should engage with the movement from the inside, strategically and persistently, and this means thinking afresh on the means by which we may support the larger binding issue with clear awareness of the risks involved. In this connection, I want to raise three questions:

First, when did we start to be so reluctant to acknowledge the fact that any civil social movement is bound to be contaminated by regressive positions and ideologies and so we cannot avoid thinking of ways of participating in them guided by awareness of the risks? I have recently been trying to collect narratives remembering the fourth national conference of the Indian women’s movement held at Kozhikode, Kerala, in 1990. The participants who spoke to me often pointed to a contrast between the dominant left parties who opposed the conference from the outside, and many, many groups who participated in the conference fully, but raised sharp criticisms which were quite like those of the former. They remarked that these critics were listened to with considerable respect because they were inside, unlike the dominant left.The participant who mentioned this, a well-known radical activist here, still remembers their arguments vividly. Another participant remembered sharp disagreements between urban feminists and rural participants on the question of justice to rape victims. While the former were opposed to the ‘solution’ of marrying the victim off to the rapist, a senior participant from a rural area who spoke up approved of it. This was shocking and unexpected to the urban feminists, but then purity of positions wasn’t, apparently, an overwhelming concern then — and at that place.

Clearly, there was something else that did ensured that things didn’t break down when one was confronted with diametrically opposed views within the same fold. I’m still thinking about what that might have been, but my first hunch is that it might have been some shared desire for an oppositional ‘India’, which seems to have completely evaporated from sections of the liberal left now.I mean, given all tumultuous decades in between, it may be more difficult to stop hearing nothing but the violent pounding of army-boots, seeing the hideousness of Narendra Modi, whenever ‘India’ is evoked. Maybe it is time to think of how we could think of the Indian nation otherwise, and the anti-corruption struggle could be an opportunity. About the Kozhikode conference, many participants remembered how it produced not nationalism but an unnameable sense of connection across borders and languages; some attributed it to the carnival-like atmosphere in which different groups were expressing ‘liberation from patriarchy’ is amazingly diverse ways, many of which were directly opposed with each other. There, the leadership was clearly on the left of the political spectrum, and positions that were traditionalist were largely among the participants; here, this order seems roughly reversed. But of course, here the challenge to the left is harder because democratic deliberation seems to be minimal. All the more reason, I’d think, why we should step in and be there.

Secondly, why cannot we think of the significance of this movement in terms other than the immediate issue of the Janlokpal Bill? Why cannot, for instance, think of this as a crucial moment in which ‘civil society’ has finally managed to force political society to pay attention? The massive scams have provided the context for this.It does not, however, surprise me that the ‘civil society’ in the movement, especially the leadership, has been showing some pretty ‘uncivil’ tendencies, and in an utterly unapologetic fashion. This, I feel, is because the ‘civil society’ is certainly a mix of very different strands of politics, many of which are not oppositional at all. The right-wing tendencies are a challenge that those of us who identify with oppositional civil society ought to expect in any civil social struggle against corrupt politicians. Such tendencies are bound to appear somewhere, either in the leadership or among the followers, given the strength of conservative social and political ideologies. Since we indeed interested in changing the orientation of civil social politics, and since we are interested in ending stopping corruption by politicians and the government, I feel, we cannot abstain from  engaging persistently and strategically with the movement from the inside, despite all the ugliness of its present leadership. Not for a moment would I trivialise the fears that the critics of the movement are expressing, but I don’t see how we can confront the ugliness effectively, if we stay outside and speak mainly to each other — the already-converted.

Maybe we are entering a phase in which politicians in India will be forced to take note of inconvenient issues raised by the civil society? Hitherto, they have ridden piggy-back on the convenient issues, usually raised by the conservative civil society led by religious leaders. Such a transition seems to have happened minimally in Kerala. V S Achuthanandan’s clout in the CPM and in Malayalee society in general rests upon his shrewd appropriation of many inconvenient issues raised by the oppositional civil society; so does the massive public support enjoyed by V M Sudheeran, which actually raised him above the pressures from his own party, the Congress. This involves huge risks, to be sure. But our worries ought to be not about the risks —  they are there and we are obliged to find ways of surmounting them — but about lack of awareness of the risks.

Thirdly, why do many of us think that anyone offering support to the present movement must be either power-hungry or ‘ontologically tainted’?  Plurality in the strong sense is openness to the world and the world contains much messiness and ugliness that may repel us. Looking at some of the extreme responses on Facebook against people known to be part of the left who have suggested that the left remain open to the present struggle, I fear that some of us have reached the shutting-off from politics into zones of sentimental comfort that Hannah Arendt warns us about. She does not deny that these may be places of “kindliness and sheer goodness … a source of vitality, a joy in the simple fact of being alive…”. However, as she points out, the charm and intensity that characterizes this world is also due to the great privilege of being unburdened with care for the world” (Arendt,Men in Dark Times, 1968, 13-14). Such revulsion of the world’s ugliness, I fear, has prompted some of us to retreat into safe zones from which we can protest, criticize, lament about the ugliness of the rest of the world. One may claim that one’s concern about the world, about making it hospitable for all human beings, but after every battle, one draws back into the comfort of the sentimental zone of sameness. Further, our comprehension of the past, with which we make judgements about the messy and heterogeneous world outside, serves to totally deny persons outside our fold the ability to change. Anyone taking a peep outside or contemplating a peep must be suspect, in this reckoning.

It is my experience that staying put within these safe zones breeds mediocrity; it promotes respect for consensus in judgement within the comfort zone and renders us practically blind to difference. I have been watching Jayan Cherian’s documentary Shape of the Shapeless, which brilliantly details a spiritual practice that takes the body — and its gender — as its very instrument. The life of Jon Cory/Premadas/Rose Wood defies every convention, subverts religion, radicalizes performance. And through the documentary, this life breaks out of its private space, its radical subjectivism, and points to a politics. It is dismaying, though, that there is so little discussion on the film, though many of our left intellectuals an critics have watched it. When I asked some of them about the film, they said they liked it. Finish. A huge contrast indeed, with the ecstatic reviews of documentaries in the mould of the ‘activist documentary’. The latter is very acceptable to us because it makes no major demands upon the viewer and is built on a left ideological consensus ; in sum, it does not challenge our imagination, aesthetic or ethical, in any major way. In other words, the more mediocre it is, the easier it is write about, or it so appears! Jayan’s film follows a life which is open to faith, to sexual performance, but which also seems domestic — in ways that challenge the boundaries of all these, risking it all the time. It appears that we simply don’t get it  — or want to get it.

I know that to write so much it itself risky. But I am pretty used by now to being evicted periodically from many homes within this diverse territory of the left, and so the accusing cries of ‘traitor’ or ‘charlatan’ neither surprises nor unnerves me.

7 Comments leave one →
  1. g.sunil permalink
    August 25, 2011 3:29 PM

    how can you enter within the movement, which shouts aloud anti-reservation slogans?

    • August 25, 2011 3:57 PM

      Can you point out to me any instance of such shouting anti reservation slogans by IAC movement. I have spent all my waking hours these ten days and earlier since April and later with the movement and while i have heard other slogans that i could barely tolerate, i have not come across any anti reservation or anti dalit slogans as a some people are whipping up passions about. If you do point out any such true instances I wish to disassociate myself from such a movement and make my voice heard against it.

  2. chetna kaul permalink
    August 25, 2011 3:37 PM

    i guess the rule of left in west bengal clearly shows that their ideology is for paper not in practice, and well the people have showed them by voting them out

  3. Inasu THALAK permalink
    August 25, 2011 5:33 PM

    Bravo Devikaji. You have raised some genuine concerns about the reluctance of the self-professed left progressive activists to join Hazare’s movement. The reason I thionk
    is that we are debating about its ‘ ideological rectitude’ with the result that we tend to
    ignore the almost spontaneous,homespun nature of the movement. Arundhati has disserted forcefully against and about the person of Hzare. Someone wrote in details about Ur-Fascism, quoting Umberto Eco succinctly. We all feel that all is not clear and clean about Anna’s team. But corruption is something which affects every Indian, high
    and low. My own first ‘face to face’ with corruption was at the moment when, having passed the merit scholarship exam to be fees- free in high school classes, I had to go
    and get the revenu declaration signed by the Taluk Revenu Officer at Chavakkad. Though
    I presented the duly filled-up form at the opening of the office, I was kept waiting for nearly
    four hours while those who came after me got their job ‘done’ I could not guess then, by
    what magic. In meantime one gentleman seemingly accustomed to this office, indicated
    to me that to get it done quickly ‘something’ was to be given to the peon who piled up the
    files on the officer’s table. I had no money with me (being a poor farmer family we had no
    means enough to buy the daily ration) but I decided take a move instinctively. I felt humiliated, was in a rage and burst into the officer’s cabin tears rolling down my cheeks;
    The guy looked up at me rather bewildered and annoyed. He took my form, signed it and
    flung it on my face, muttering “what nuisance, these types, siva, siva”! This was some forty
    years ago under the first communist regime in Kerala. My latest, was about a year ago with
    a senior clerk in the municipal office for the transfer of ownership. He asked me 1000 rupees in cash so that he could do it without any “procedural” delay. I refused. Let us admit: this culture of corruption is eating into our faith in goverment, administration, and
    especiallynin the efficiency of representative politics; People feel that it ia a dishonour to
    India and Indians. Yes Hazare and his supporters play on the patriotic/nationalist chords
    and what if they chant Vande Mataram or Sare Jaham Se Accha. In this context let me quote Regis Debray (companion to Castro, Guevarra, Alliende, etc): “revolitionary zeal
    can not take the place of patriotic feelingd each one of us has for our respective country”
    Inasu THALAK/ poet-writer/ Paris

  4. August 26, 2011 12:35 AM

    When some one say they are on the Left of the Political spectrum,it implies he/she wants to transform the society in a progressive/positive way. For that engaging with people of different ideological posititons is a must. I appreciate that the writer is ready to do that.


  1. El movimiento Anna Hazare en la India: hechos y fricciones « En lucha constante contra el NWO…
  2. El movimiento Anna Hazare en la India: hechos y fricciones « Maestroviejo's Blog

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71,865 other followers

%d bloggers like this: