In two years Prashant Bhushan has gone from defending a plebiscite on the fate of Kashmir to asking for a vote on the Army's deployment in the Valley. The reaction from a fringe right wing Hindutva group, a clearly calculated one, has been the same in either case, an attempt to physically browbeat him into further moderating or repudiating his views.
From what I know of Prashant Bhushan, that is not going to happen. He is not a man likely to give in to a bunch of hooligans whose political affiliations are not difficult to guess. Yet, he has moderated his views, and he has presumably done so for reasons that I find far more worrisome than anything the hoodlums can achieve. In my understanding the pressures of mass politics, his own active role in the AAP seem to have forced this moderation on Bhushan, a caution that is alien to the man.
Prashant Bhushan. Reuters.
Bhushan is an irreplaceable presence in our public life. His pragmatic immoderation is in great part responsible for the way some of the most important cases of the past five years – the 2G and the coal scam – have unfolded. His work as a lawyer is a sign of his pragmatism, he understands the law, and it is his immoderation that allows him the possibility of pushing it in unexpected directions. He combines this with some incredibly naïve views on the possibility of direct democracy in our country, believing that technology can actually allow us to address most of our problems through referendums. He seems not to have considered the majoritarian implications of such public populism. If he were to seriously consider his own proposals he would find that while a referendum in Kashmir may yield one viewpoint on the Army, a referendum in the rest of the country will yield quite another. The question of how we privilege one referendum over another only ends up taking us back to the heart of the Kashmir problem.
And while theoretically Bhushan may push for such proposals, I do not see him actually succumbing to their verdict. If a majority of this country were to opt for a temple at the disputed Ayodhya site I cannot see Bhushan subscribe to the proposal. But the problem is that while he is only a theoretician of populism, his conscience easily understanding the dangers it poses, his colleagues barring Yogendra Yadav are actually practitioners of his theoretical stance. So far they have shown far too great a willingness to mould their political positions according to what is deemed to be popular among the electorate.
This is an easy position, but it foregoes one of the primary aims of public life. Consider the question of the AFPSA in Kashmir, it would indeed be foolhardy for any government to revoke it with complete disdain for the view of the rest of the country, but surely any public figure who believes that under the current situation the use of the AFPSA in much of the Valley is an injustice must then try and mould public opinion in this direction. It is this ability to hold a point of view out of personal conviction and attempt to influence the public to see the rightness of such a view that seems to be so far missing in Kejriwal and many of the prominent leaders of the AAP. No leader can hope to remain one only by following the public mood.
So far Kejriwal and his team have shown an unwillingness to take on the mantle of leadership. They won an election and were not even clear whether they wanted to form a government. Kejriwal refused the CM's bungalow and then at first opted for a five-bedroom house, what again was he thinking, and is he next going to select his toothpaste based on a referendum?
Obviously such an approach will reach ludicrous limits. But where are the AAP leaders planning to stop? The decision to earmark seats in Delhi University for residents of the city is one such. Of all the cities in the country Delhi is the one that is not claimed by any community; that, for all its faults, has been open to outsiders from everywhere. The decision having been announced will attract its own constituency, will indeed meet the test of its own referendum designed to yield just such a result, but where was the deliberation that should have gone into it?
AAP proposes to put up candidates for the Lok Sabha. Clearly they must understand the primary job of an MP is to draft, debate and pass legislation. So far their approach is to deal with things on a case by case basis, relying on the comfortable cushion of public opinion to frame their response. I look forward to their manifesto, or manifestoes, to see if they have the stomach to buck this populist approach that actually reduces them to a cipher, or at best makes them conduits of public opinion on any issue. How will they deal with questions of minority rights or of reservations?
They have shown an ability to adapt to circumstances in the past, they should be able to do so again. But you cannot find a conscience overnight. As it is there are only a few among them who speak their mind, rather than give voice to referendums. Prashant Bhushan is one such, they would be well advised to shelter him from the requirements of mass politics. They will find no shortage of other people to become Lok Sabha MPs. Prashant Bhushan is a maverick, a man with whom I am far more likely to disagree than agree but for that reason he is essential to the AAP. They would damage themselves if they were to silence or moderate his views.
(Hartosh Singh Bal is a consulting editor at Firstpost.)
No comments:
Post a Comment