Echos of Churchill
Recent opinion about Anna Hazare's movement has been getting some curious reaction from the chattering classes in India (which are predominantly "liberal"). The linked article written by Arundhati Roy is a very typical example. Anna Hazare movement is dangerous because:
1. It subverts due process (which in this case is democracy).
2. It uses Hindu religious iconography (like Bharat Mata) and is hence communal.
3. It is a middle class movement with no participation from "real india".
This reminds me of the liberals in India who opposed Gandhi for pretty much the same reasons. Gandhi's method was considered to be unacceptably communal by none other than Jinnah, although his demands (like that of Anna) were never communal.
The British establishment refused to negotiate with the Churchill's "half naked fakir" because he was subverting due process and bypassing elected "Indian" assemblies that the British had setup to administer India.
Regarding poor people not participating, the assessment is murky at best. Aparently poor people have to earn a living and hence cannot be bothered by these protests. From stating this obvious fact to concluding that this proves the poor do not support this movement involves a logical gymnastic that is beyond my understanding.
Finally, the reaction, although it was unexpected, is easily understood in retrospect. The erudite classes, after all, are brought up in the same system as the ruling class.
1. It subverts due process (which in this case is democracy).
2. It uses Hindu religious iconography (like Bharat Mata) and is hence communal.
3. It is a middle class movement with no participation from "real india".
This reminds me of the liberals in India who opposed Gandhi for pretty much the same reasons. Gandhi's method was considered to be unacceptably communal by none other than Jinnah, although his demands (like that of Anna) were never communal.
The British establishment refused to negotiate with the Churchill's "half naked fakir" because he was subverting due process and bypassing elected "Indian" assemblies that the British had setup to administer India.
Regarding poor people not participating, the assessment is murky at best. Aparently poor people have to earn a living and hence cannot be bothered by these protests. From stating this obvious fact to concluding that this proves the poor do not support this movement involves a logical gymnastic that is beyond my understanding.
Finally, the reaction, although it was unexpected, is easily understood in retrospect. The erudite classes, after all, are brought up in the same system as the ruling class.
Comments