Open Forum

New Delhi, 15 January 2015

Delhi Battle Royal

PM MODI VS KEJRIWAL

              Dr. S.Saraswathi

   (Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

Without naming anybody directly, the BJP’s star campaigner for Delhi Assembly elections, the Prime Minister, made a veiled reference to AAP leader, Arvind Kejriwal, as an “anarchist”. Stating, that anarchists have no place in Delhi, and that they should “go to jungles and join Naxals”, Modi reminded the Delhi electorate that what they want is development and not dharnas.

Notably, Modi claimed that the BJP is good at providing good governance and the AAP Party is good in organizing dharnas thus presenting clear alternatives before the voters. Street level politics in the form of dharnas and demonstrations, direct action in defiance of law are equated with anarchism read not the anarchist political philosophy as we have learnt from textbooks, but its practical association with unruly lawless political behaviour in popular common man’s conception.

Recall Kejriwal had remarked “Yes, I am an anarchist”, when he was Chief Minister of Delhi, perhaps irritated by frequent remarks of his political opponents. He was  inviting  people of Delhi to join his protest defying police orders in the heart of Delhi as his demand for the suspension of three police officers who refused to carry out the orders of his Ministers to make some arrests were not accepted. Pertinently, he could not wait for the findings of enquiries ordered by the Union Home Ministry under which the Delhi Police is placed. His assertion instantly became a quote for his AAP’s opponents.

Reacting to the direct attack of the Prime Minister, Kejriwal  who  in fact is a self-identified anarchist,  chose to read in this a  favourable  point  of  lack of  any  substantive criticism of  his  49-day governance. He retorted that, “We know how to protest as well as to govern”.

It seems that the electoral battle in Delhi is being shaped to centre around “anarchism” and “development”. Importantly, this issue, framed in the course of emotional politics and war of words has not weighed their full import.  

In the context of political developments, it is necessary to be clear about Kejriwal’s type of anarchism.  He is certainly not an anarchist of conventional   text-book type.  He believes in forming a political party, contesting elections under our Constitution and winning seats and   forming the Government.  His Party, one must remember, was born out of a social movement.  In fact, there are many types of anarchism as there are many schools within other political philosophies like   liberalism, communism, socialism, feminism, etc.

The Greek term “anarchia” (from which the English “anarchism” is derived),  denotes  “non-rule” or “without ruler”,  and implies complete freedom of man from any kind of  authority. Anarchism is defined by Coker as “the doctrine that political authority in any of its forms is unnecessary and undesirable”.

Confirmed anarchists of modern times like Godwin and Proudhon opposed political authority as well as private property.  Proudhon’s famous statement that “property is theft” portrays succinctly his anarchist views. To him, anarchy is order and not disorder, and  political authority is enemy of justice, reason, and fair deal. C.E.M.  Joad wanted to remove the burden of not only political but also religious authority. H.D.Thoreau stated that, “that government is best which governs not at all”.

Two different types of anarchism have developed – individualist and   collectivist.  The former is interested in the philosophy and believes in the rights of man unrestricted by any authority or collective body.  The latter is best represented by communistic anarchists who formulated clear political and social doctrines.  Bakunin declared that eventually political  authority, private property, and religion would disappear. Like him, Kropotkin, advocated replacement of the State, which is unnatural, by a web of freely functioning groups.

Therefore, the usage of the term “anarchist” today to refer to a recognized political leader either by the person himself or by his /her critics is highly inappropriate.  Anarchism is detected today in any direct action, resistance and disobedience to authority, and popular struggle – all of which contain modes of opposition, but not necessarily violent.  Direct action is generally provoked only when State authorities fail to listen.

The central theme of anarchism lies in its idea about the State.  It stands for the abolition of the State and creation of a stateless society. It rejects all kinds of authority that interferes with the spontaneous actions and associations of individuals. 

Anarchists profess faith in voluntary autonomous groups.  They think that humans have a natural impulse to cooperate with one another.   One cannot fail to mention Gandhiji in this context who observed that “the nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on non-violence”.

While the philosophical anarchists preach the method of persuasion, discussions, propaganda, and such peaceful methods, revolutionary radical anarchists advocate violence, and forcible changes, and revolt against the State and established order.

Unfortunately, the label “anarchism”, in popular conception,   is associated with violence and disorder more than with non-violence and peaceful resistance however progressive their ideas may be.  The association is so strong that the terms “anarchism” and “anarchists” have lost their original meaning.

The spirit of anarchism represented by Kejriwal and his clan lies limited to  direct action, resistance and popular struggle without violence.  It believes in strong  direct  speech  and   direct  action and not theorizing.

Pertinently, Kejriwal’s action in defiance of the Electricity Board or campaign for non-payment of water bills are some  forms of  radical  direct action.  The defence may be the need for some drastic steps to change the extraordinarily corrupt mechanisms  and their functioning that pervade  the entire gamut of governance.   

Arguably, Kejriwal’s spirit of anarchism is suitable for an NGO and for political Parties sitting in opposition and not for a party aspiring to form the Government. Modi is adept in politics  as much as in  economics to introduce anarchism in election issues to push through his development agenda.

Those who call Kejriwal an “anarchist” are unintentionally elevating him to the status of some great social-political thinkers.  All that he wants and works for  is  clean  governance,  eradication of corruption and dynastic rule,  and   security for all  people. His  experiments in  direct democracy within his short tenure  by introducing Mohalla Sabhas and convening people’s assemblies (Darbar) are to some  people  unacceptable and bound to fail  in the prevailing political scenario. 

Naturally, they look radical and even anarchic even though they are not alternative institutions to replace the system of parliamentary democracy.   There is a vast difference between creating anarchy and anarchist position which may be conveniently overlooked in political contests to confuse the voters.

Undoubtedly, this is not the first time that the term “anarchist” is being loosely used in Indian politics. Without implying any comparison which may sound ridiculous, we may recall how hostile we generally are towards radical thinkers in our society.  Jayaprakash Narayan was considered an anarchist, but he advocated partyless democracy and not a stateless society.  He wanted to build a democratic system that was direct, near, and popular.  He worked for a “civil-political society” in the place of “political-civil society” that had engulfed the entire social order.  

Much of Kejriwal’s uncommon politics and governance like holding Assembly in the open grounds and clearing official work  while sitting on “dharna”  certainly  created  sensational news  but  could not establish a civil-political society. If he is in politics he has to play politics. So far, his over-enthusiasm has cost him dearly – a factor that will always be exploited by his rivals. Whether Kejriwal’s brand of AAP politics emerges successful the Delhi’s ballot boxes will decide on 10 February. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)