few
weeks ago I received a call from Mayank Gandhi, Mumbai coordinator of
‘India Against Corruption’, inviting me to be part of a panel in Mumbai
to address a press conference on the then upcoming fast by Anna Hazare.
“Your name has been suggested to me by Swami Agnivesh. We want Muslims
like you, not fanatical Muslims. So please join us and suggest other
Muslim names,” I was told.
Great, I thought: Which Indian is not sick of
corruption? Here was a budding movement, clearly focused on a single
issue but not blind to related concerns. The Mumbai coordinator of the
campaign was very clear that they were only interested in “good Muslims”
like me and did not wish to get mixed up with the fundamentalist lot. So
I thanked him for the invitation and promised to get back to him in a
day or two.
But something I read in the newspapers the next
morning made me uneasy, a question popped up from nowhere. Who is
currently facing the heat for corruption and who is leading the charge
against this malaise? No prizes for getting it right: tainted by scam
after scam, the Congress and its DMK ally are the sinners, the BJP are
the saints (forget the kaliyug – the dark age – in
Karnataka).
One doubt led to another. Haven’t we lived through
two nationwide anti-corruption movements before, the JP movement in the
early 1970s, the VP Singh movement in the late 1980s? Neither of them
succeeded in rooting out corruption. But both, however innocently and
unwittingly, contributed to the poisoning of national politics. JP’s
movement and the Janata government that followed gave respectability to
Hindu communalism. The VP Singh government, opportunistically supported
by the BJP from the outside, paved the way for the meteoric rise of the
BJP – from two seats in the Lok Sabha in 1984 to 79 in 1989 –
which in turn laid the foundation for the first ever Hindutva-led
government in New Delhi. No one in his right mind would accuse JP or VP
Singh of being communal. I admired and identified with the movements
they led. But do ponder the outcome of their movements.
So I called back two days later and said I was keen
on joining the movement against corruption but conditions apply: I
needed to know more about the company I would be keeping. For example, I
was happy to know we wouldn’t have to rub shoulders with “bad Muslims”
but what about “bad Hindus”? Or, for that matter, would I find myself
sharing a platform with people known for their promotion of “Mr Clean”
Modi as prime ministerial candidate? If so, would I have the freedom to
declare from the same platform that to me, sponsorship of mass crimes
was the worst form of corruption?
The answer was unhesitating, clear and precise: “We
are only concerned with ending corruption. No one will be allowed to
talk politics from our platform. Beyond that, we are not concerned with
people’s political affiliations.” Why then the concern about “fanatical
Muslims”? But that seemed like a rude question. So I wished the movement
success even as I expressed my inability to join.
That was then. I do not wish to spoil the show for
those celebrating the “second movement for independence” that Anna has
won for us. But I cannot hide the fact that I with my missing foreskin
continue to feel uneasy about the Anna revolution for more than one
reason.
Though VD Savarkar and Guru Golwalkar thought
otherwise, we are all her children. So I’m okay with “Bharat Mata”
providing a backdrop for the fasting Anna. But did the mahatma in our
midst have no problems with the Hindu Mahasabha jumping on his
bandwagon? Did he have to apologise to Uma Bharti (who had jumped on
Murli Manohar Joshi’s back in ecstasy as the domes of the Babri Masjid
were knocked down) when his own supporters had the good sense to prevent
her from joining the dharna at Jantar Mantar? Did Anna feel any
discomfort on seeing Baba Ramdev descend on Jantar Mantar in the company
of Ram Madhav of the RSS? If he did, why did he not speak his mind?
Nor did Anna speak when Gujarat’s chief minister
Narendra Modi proclaimed that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement
on Anna’s fast had “created an emergency-like situation in the country”.
Since Modi is no political ignoramus, what could this statement possibly
mean?
But thank you, Anna, for speaking up now. I was
assured that no one would be allowed to make political use of your
anti-corruption platform. But who can stop the leader from speaking? So
we now know that in your post-corrupt utopia, we should look forward to
leaders like Narendra Modi.
Am I being unfair to you, since you have quickly clarified that you
are against “communal disharmony”? Modi has never proclaimed himself in
favour of “communal disharmony” either. But your own close associates,
lawyers Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan, and Swami Agnivesh, could
tell you more. Interested?