Journey of a social movement: Anna to AAP

AAP (Aam Admi Party) has raised the hopes of millions. They see it as an alternative to the current political parties of Congress, BJP and other regional parties. With the birth of AAP, simultaneously, the hope for a strong social movement which could remove corruption from the society has died for millions.
                                      The transition from a social movement to a political party has been an interesting one. Its origin can be seen in the general unrest in the society against widespread corruption among the political classes in particular and the government machinery in general. Anna Hazare, the chief architect of the movement, started a fast at the famed Jantar Mantar in New Delhi for passing of Lokpal Bill. There was widespread support to his fast. People came from all over India to support him. This support was the culmination of a wide anger and despair among the Indian masses, the 'Aam Admi',  against the numerous scams (read Commonwealth Games Scam, Cash for Votes Scam, Adarsh Society Scam, Housing Loan Scam, Radia Tapes Controversy etc.). Added to these were soaring inflation, rising crimes and deteriorating power of the masses vis a vis the elites across economic, political and social dimensions.
                                       The country saw a range of localized protests. But the precipitating moment for the movement was the one when Government decided to frame the Lokpal legislation. Hazare began his indefinite fast on 5 April 2011 at in Delhi to press for demand to form a joint committee of the representatives of the Government and the civil society to draft a stronger anti-corruption bill with stronger penal actions and more independence to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas. The fast forced the Government to reconsider the Lokpal Bill giving due consideration to the demands of Team Anna only to fall back on its promise later. Anna continued, ably supported by his comrades like Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, Shashi and Prashant Bhushan among others. But slowly it seemed that the Indian masses , who can be literally termed Ghajini, for their short memory, were falling back to theri routine life after getting bored with few days of high profile drama created by the movement. This was evident in the last protest held in New Delhi by the India Against Corruption team which witnessed dwindling levels of supporters with even less media attention, the latter though can be attributed to the impartiality of Indian media.
                                       The movement got split into two parts, with Anna Hazare not wanting to enter politics and the splinter group, led by Arvind Kejriwal, frustrated by the little progress they had achieved through  the instruments of demonstrations and protests, deciding to directly enter into politics and fight the elections.
              What must be remembered here is that by splitting the movement and institutionalizing it in two different forms, one as a periodical social movement  and the other as a political party, the creators of the original movement have saved the movement from dying a natural death. The creation of AAP has enthused the people with a new hope. The continuation of Anna movement on the other hand will ensure that people will have a more direct and adventurous way of having their voice represented than merely voting for a political party. The movement is living, it has not died, in fact it has just entered its maturity stage, and can be termed as adult when compared with human life. In a recent interview retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju told that India is seemingly entering the phase of a cultural revolution. In his views the next 15-20 years will be troublesome, we will see lots of protests, movements which will try to uproot the old corrupt society and plant the new honest and egalitarian society in its place. If his words are to come true the Anna movement has to live. It has not died, it should not die.
                         

Parsons, Charminar of Hyderabad and Durkheim's Solution

The functionalists have repeatedly been proven wrong by religious enthusiasts in India. Earlier it was about Babri and now it is being repeated at Charminar of Hyderabad. Talcott Parsons had mentioned that religion serves two main functions for society. Firstly it helps in removing the anxieties associated with uncertainties in life. For instance religious rites are always associated  with events as varied as opening a new business, marriage, birth of child etc. because humans are anxious about the outcomes of these events. Religious rites help lower the anxiety level and reduce stress in these new situations. Similarly religion also serves the purpose of explaining the less understood events of our life. For instance death of a person is often said to be in congruence with what God has planned for him because humans, so far, do not have any scientific basis of explaining sudden death and guessing about afterlife of men. Thus Parsons believed that religion is a uniting force in the society.

                                                                   But incidents of Babri and now Charminar in Hyderabad appear to be grossly in conflict with Parsons's thinking. Was a thinker as great as him so wrong in his understanding  of a concept as pervasive as religion ? Or is there a lacunae in our understanding of Parson ?

    Let us look more analytically at Parsons' propositions. He told that religion is a unifying force in the society. The only variable in this statement is the society under study. Should we take all people of Hyderabad involved in Charminar conflict as belonging to one society or should we consider them as consisting of two different societies one of Hindus and the other of Muslims. The second option appears to fit nicely into Parson's propositions. The Religion has united all the Muslims of Hyderabad and all the Hindus of Hyderabad as one society. It is indeed acting as a unifying force. Then the conflict perhaps is between two different societies. If this is true then at false is India's ideals of secularism.

Right after partition, in fact even before it, India made it clear that it was a secular nation where the rights of Hindus, Muslims and other religious minorities would be given similar respect. However what is professed is often not practiced. After partition the Muslim government servants were seen with suspicion, especially those who had families or relatives in the newly created Muslim state of Pakistan. Several such employees were forced to either bring their families back from Pakistan so that they do not have any affinity with Pakistan or resign from their post. Years later the Mandal commission report highlighted that Muslims were underrepresented in education as well as jobs to a great extent. It indicates that something is wrong with the so called secular society of India which seems to favor the dominance of one community over another. Every society has a unique culture and the muslim society in India had come to acquire the culture of underachievement, different from those of Hindus, Sikhs, or Christians.

Having understood that the real problem lies in our inadequate understanding of the society, can we approach Parsons for stemming the rise of divisive forces among various societies in India.   Parsons does not appear to have a solution for uniting two diverse societies. Perhaps we should look towards Durkheim then.

According to Durkheim religion is society and religious worship is the worship of society which is over and above the individual. By religious rites people reinforce the importance of society in their lives. Through them the collective conscience of the society is transferred to the individuals. What then is the collective conscience of the society of Hyderabad ? Or are there two collective consciences in Hyderabad, one of Muslims and the other of Hindus ?
                       
                           Durkheim defines collective conscience as the shared beliefs, values, ideas of the people of the society which are existing at a level outside the individual. That the collective conscience of the two societies of Hyderabad, assuming they are different, are the same, is evident from the fact that there was no conflict a few days back. Then how did the conflict cropped up. Durkheim would explain this using social currants. It is these social currents which are short lived, but very strongly motivating, which lead to the two societies forgetting their collective conscience and  indulging in conflict against each other. We must then control these social currents. Durkheim would suggest that these can be checked by increasing integration of the two societies. Such integration can only be gained when the larger society i.e. the Hindus are ready to show a bigger heart and allow the smaller society i.e. the Muslims to gain from the concessions. What India has been adopting in its international politics, like giving more gains to its smaller neighbors like Bangladesh, Nepal etc., it has to apply in its domestic politics too.

We must then ensure that Charminar does not repeat the way of the Babri and prove that the whole India is one society.

"I" to "Me": A journey from College to Office

George Herbert Mead has given the concepts of "I" and "Me" to understand a personality. "I" is the immediate response of an individual , an unpredictable and creative aspect of the self. In contrast "Me" is the organised set of attitudes of others which one himself assumes. "I" acts spontaneously while "Me" always takes into account the expected reactions of others to one's actions by keeping oneself in shoes of others.
                                              There was a college student dominated by "I", careless or rather carefree he is, never bothering about what others would say regarding his actions. He bunked classes, used to wake up at 2'O clock after playing counter-strike the whole night, often missed breakfast and lunch , never cared about what grades he got. Then a day came when this students leaves the college and gets a job. On his first day  of his office, he is late and gets a cold reception from his boss. A week later he bunks his office to meet some old college mates. The next day he receives a nice and warm firing from his boss.  Next month he has to give a big presentation to a client. He works for three days and nights and prepares a lively presentation but does not care to consult his superior for assistance. But alas ! his heart is broken when he is told that there are many flaws in it. Corrections are made in the presentation by his boss but he still feels that the original was better.
                                             A year later he receives the award for the employee of the year. In the past three months he has taken just two leaves and that too because he was sick. He has always been on time for office and has worked overtime on several days. While making all his presentations he has consulted his boss and implemented their views whether he personally liked their ideas or not. The guy is asked by the host of the award ceremony to say a few words for encouraging the newly recruited employees.
                                                                                                                                     The guy started, "You all must have been really creative and innovative in your life so far. But from now on three things are required of you. Firstly in place of creativeness you have to show obedience to the ideas of your seniors. They have a term for it, it's called "Team work". It means that you would work on the ideas of your superiors and your superior would take the credit on behalf of the team. Secondly whenever you are asked for a suggestion you don't give the one which appears right to you, rather you give that which you think would appear right to your boss. And lastly, always show to others that you are in their control, show that your "Me" dominates your "I". That will give immense sense of joy to your superiors and when they are happy show that you are happy too. Thank You"
The speech ended and nobody clapped. Perhaps their "Me" was still dominating their "I".