The phrase ?civil society? is now being used in India?s media and public discourse with amazing frequency. Ever since Anna Hazare broke his fast in response to central government?s agreement to form a joint panel on the drafting of Lokpal (Ombudsman) Bill, it was hailed as a victory of the civil society in the country. Then came Baba Ramdev (a popular yoga guru) with his agitation against black money stashed in tax havens abroad. Once again, the phrase civil society found echo in media and public discourse. Government ministers went to meet Baba Ramdev to strike a negotiated settlement.
Now, the honeymoon with civil society is over; the ministers of Manmohan Singh?s government have begun to denigrate civil society representatives as ?fronts? for other political parties; the leaders of Sonia Gandhi?s Congress party have called them ?self-serving? non-state actors now. Why this sudden and dramatic shift in just two months?from acquiescence to intimidation, from eulogising to denigration, from ?glory to civil society? to ?let?s investigate these crooks?? History shows similar patterns.
The first serious issue of corruption that gained the attention of common public in independent India was during the hunger and famine in Bihar in the late 1960s; a new generation of volunteers and social activists began to work there on food programmes, only to discover that foodgrains were not really in short supply; it was the indifferent, callous and corrupt administration that was responsible for hunger and famine in the region. That programme of subsidised foodgrains?from procurement from the farmers (where waiting period is reduced in proportion to the bribe), to storage (where rats eat it), to distribution (where it is sold in the ?black? market)?has since epitomised institutionalised corruption at every step of the process.
In the late 1970s, many social action groups began to organise the rural poor to demand their rights. A major agitation in Rajasthan resulted in workers in drought relief programmes of the government demanding minimum wages. The state government started harassing the voluntary agency supporting this struggle. Since then, thousands of activists have been harassed by police and government officials when they organise forest workers, tendu leaf pickers, minor forest produce gatherers or NREGA workers to demand minimum wages, payments of wages in time or rights of contract labour.
The Indian state in all its apparatus is a corrupt state today. A study of ?non-action? on CAG reports over the past decades is a good indicator of this corruption. Appointment of various categories of employees in different government agencies has always required the use of ?speed? money; despite computerisation and accolades to e-governance, crucial land/property registration and development activities require ?reasonable? bribes; no payments from the government?for private contractors or NGOs?at any level are fully released without some percentage share going to the officials concerned.
For decades now, voluntary action and social activism has been focused on ensuring the delivery of basic services to the poor and the excluded; efforts to make service providers?in education, healthcare, water, sanitation, agriculture, housing?do an honest job has occupied the attention of activists for years. In return, government officials and security agencies intimidate such activists when accountability is demanded. Violence against RTI activists has grown nationwide; the government is yet to demonstrate its ability to deal with such intimidation.
The rule of the UPA over the past seven years seems to have created an impression that it is pro-citizens and friendly with civil society. It has notified a National Policy on Voluntary Sector. Various consultations and mechanisms at the national level have been implemented where ?voices? of civil society seem to be heard. But does this imply that the basic contradictions between an active civil society and a ?democratic? state have been resolved or set aside?
The Indian state is both smarter and stronger now; hence, it has started to create differences and conflicts within the civil society. It seemed to initially suggest that Anna Hazare?s anti-corruption movement was ?acceptable?; in any case, binding social activists in committees and legislative processes is a time-tested strategy to confuse, confound and fudge. The government is angry with Anna now because he has set August 15 as the deadline for enactment of the Lokpal Bill by Parliament. Delay is a powerful tool of the state to deny rights, justice and accountability.
On the other hand, Baba Ramdev?s agitation was demanding an Act to declare all ?black? money stashed abroad as national wealth, and its owners to be punished for ?war against the country?. To do this in a time-bound manner would imply that many ministers and officials (and their businessman-supporters) of the central government would have to be punished. So, the Indian state attacked Baba?s movement physically, orally and organisationally. Baba?s key activists will now be busy dealing with various agencies of the state inquiring into some wrongdoing or the other. May I remind you of the Kudal Commission set up by then PM Indira Gandhi to ?debilitate and destroy? all Gandhian institutions that had sided with Jayaprakash Narayan?s Total Revolution movement in the mid 1970s?
Now, the ruling class of the current government in Delhi is castigating both Anna and Baba in the same way: they are ?subverting? due parliamentary processes under the guise of civil society, and at the behest of certain reactionary communal forces and parties. It is being said that civil society cannot be allowed to ?hijack? democracy and undermine the parliamentary system. While Anna and Baba need support on these issues, mobilisation of citizens of this country from the grassroots level is the best long-term hope to fight a corrupt state with a democratic facade. The organised forms of civil society are fragmented in the country today. Should civil society get into its internal ?holier-than-thou? positions now, the corrupt state will continue for long. In the ?war against corruption? in democratic India, civil society may have to face its greatest challenge yet.
The author is President, Society for Participatory Research in Asia