By Rajni Bakshi
Ever since New Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal defiantly declared that he is an anarchist, some of the people who want to support the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) are having second thoughts. Frequent violent clashes between police and protestors on the streets of the capital seem to reinforce the impression that anarchism is a toxic ideology and methodology.
Where does this leave all those who hope that we are in the midst of a groundswell of people's power that might bring Indian democracy closer to true swaraj? It may not be possible to seek an answer to this question without looking more closely at both, the concept of swaraj and the philosophical legacy of anarchism.
Aam Aadmi Party workers. AFP.
In the AAP discourse, swaraj, or self-rule, is largely being equated with some form of direct democracy. This is the aspiration of 'aam admi' or 'ordinary people' to have greater access to, and control over decision making – with devolution of power to the village or neighbourhood level.
But what if, fundamentally, swaraj is an inward and introspective process of first establishing rule over the self, over one's passions, and on that basis engaging with public life? This is how Mahatma Gandhi defined swaraj and that was why rule of India by Indians was a secondary goal. The primary goal was moral and ethical renewal of the society, with each individual as a self-governing being tapping the higher faculties of cooperation, compassion, truth in speech and action.
This is not to suggest that devolution of power was not a major priority for Gandhi. One of his most famous statements is that in his ideal State: "Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom, but an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual."
It is this emphasis on the individual, and his or her creative freedom, that makes the tradition of anarchism crucial to our present and future.
This is difficult to see because there is more than a century long history of equating anarchism with impossible demands and violent movements that threaten to break down law and order. The word "anarchy" comes from the Greek word "anarkhos" which is commonly translated as "without a ruler" or "without a leader."
The dominant assumption of many societies has been that without rulers life would become a nightmarish state of permanent war among competing groups and individuals.
Anarchist philosophers have rejected not just this assumption, but the underlying claim that human nature is essentially brutish. Instead, anarchists regard cooperation, mutual aid and compassion as being intrinsic human traits. Thus, the basis of society is self-governing individuals driven by their own conscience who cohere naturally – not because they are kept in check by a dominating ruler. Since anarchists treat this as a more accurate view of reality one of their famous slogans is – "Be realistic: Demand the impossible".
In this case 'impossible' does not refer to any specific demands like free water or free schooling or zero corruption. It refers to a radical re-configuration of the equation between society and the State.
This is precisely why Gandhi's political ideas were dismissed as being overly idealistic, or impossible to act upon. This is also why the anarchist dimension of Gandhi is so central to our present and future.
Both in the 19th century and early 20th century, the term 'anarchist' was indeed deployed in many parts of the world to reject the rulers of that moment – thus the term's automatic association with chaos and breakdown of all order. It was Mahatma Gandhi's pioneering political work that brought forth the positive vision of anarchism as an unfurling of the higher human faculties.
While Gandhi was passionately opposed to the State as way of legitimising organised violence, he also acknowledged that it is an elaborate network of internal relations among citizens. As the British historian Peter Marshall wrote in his book Demanding the Impossible: A history of anarchism, Gandhi knew that "it would never be adequate merely to 'overthrow' it (the state); it will only disappear with the liberation of our own selves. This is Gandhi's central and most enduring insight."
So, true swaraj is not merely structures of governance which give individual citizens greater participation in decision making – though that is important. True swaraj is the individual journey of tapping higher faculties and the collective cultural process of nurturing values which enhance creative freedom for all – notably cooperation, mutual aid and respect for the dignity of all.
This cannot be done by projecting the wrongdoers as unredeemable and evil – which inevitably unleashes energies which fan intolerance and pit brother against brother, even if it is in the pursuit of clean governance.
This could yet change if there is a groundswell of millions of Indians seeking to reaffirm democracy, not merely by changing one political party for another, but by looking inwards to find ways of exercising greater responsibility rather than finding some 'other' on whom to pin blame for all ills.
Then we would treat corruption as an aberration in which all of us are somehow complicit. In that case harsher policing, through a Lokpal legislation, will recede to the background. The emphasis will shift to moral renewal and changes in governance structures. Moral renewal would require individual and collective introspection on actions that at present fuel corruption. Simplifying government regulations and procedures would remove many of the opportunities for corruption.
Above all, such a process may help us to focus on the difference between revolution and rebellion. In revolution there is always the risk that we will exchange one tyrant or unresponsive leader and party for another. But a rebellion against all abuses of power, from the lowest to the highest level, has the potential to transform our inner being, and through that the world around us.
It is this swaraj that the philosophers of anarchy have long dreamt of awakening to.
(Rajni Bakshi is the Gandhi Peace Fellow at Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.)
No comments:
Post a Comment