From propagandists to being the instrument of change: Formation of the Aam

4.3.1 The anti - corruption movement: translating into political power

The trajectory of the corruption events in 2008 and 2010 and the increasing corruptibility fuelled public anger against the political leadership of the country, which erupted into large- scale demonstrations in New Delhi, the national capital of India. There had been initiatives in protest against the rampant corruption earlier as well, through the launch of the “India against corruption” campaign, but it did not garner much support. The anti – corruption movement in India caught the eye of the world with a storm on April 5, 2011, when the very popular social activist Anna Hazare supported by a large number of concerned citizenry from different walks of life along with Arvind Kejriwal, a former bureaucrat, sat on an indefinite hunger strike at the monumental Jantar Mantar located in the heart of New Delhi at Parliament Street (better known as Sansad Marg, a stretch of the street is demarcated for protests) in a united stand to put an end to corruption pervading the system at every level. The demand was drafting of a legislation that could establish an anti – corruption ombudsman known as Lokpal, which would serve as a politically independent functionary capable and empowered

to hold all parts of the government, including the office of the prime minister accountable for corruption charges/allegations. The movement was true reflection of the Indian Constitution tenet, “unity in diversity” against corruption. The protests in New Delhi grew and so did the pressure on the government. After seeing the public anger and the expansion of the movement the government succumbed to the pressure and agreed to draft and introduce the bill. The bill unfortunately drafted was merely a compromised legislation and opened up for new movements (Sengupta, 2013; Singh, 2013)  

There were speculations of this movement turning into a political party, but Anna Hazare refuted the news. He was quite clear about the fact that the political route was not for him. He stated that he could support a progressive party, but would not lead it as he was an ordinary man and not a politician. He wanted to stay outside the political arena to fight for his cause rather than creating a political party, pointing towards three major reasons for his political abstinence. Firstly, he argued that meeting the expenses of the election process is difficult for social movements due to lack of resources. Secondly, he held the voters accountable for progressive parties demise due to their lack of loyalty, which more often was steered and influenced by material and parochial considerations rather than the issues of common good and public interests. Thirdly, he further questioned the discipline and loyalty of the candidates presented by the movement. He argued that even if they would be elected successfully it would be near to impossible for the elected representatives to remain faithful to their cause due to the tempting trappings of power (A. Kumar, 2013, p. 13; Sengupta, 2013).

However, the guess – work of this movement transforming into a political party became a reality when the news of the split became public on the October 12 in 2012 and India saw the formation of a new political party christened the Aam Admi Party (common mans party) headed by Arvind Kejriwal. The split was explained as a disagreement between Anna Hazare and the forces within the movement who wanted to go political. The main and the underlying reason was that the movement had started to lose the pace and the unresponsive government triggered the activists to take a political step. The bill was seen to have hit rough weather enshrouded in dark clouds and the second round of drafting the Lokpal bill clearly showed that the movement had lost its steamy edge and media coverage. In addition to that, there were several voices that started appearing in the public discourse that called this movement undemocratic given its demands and methods that stood outside and in stark contrast to the

constitution. Even the civil society organization and a strand of the supporters joined the establishment in their accusation against the movement.

The reasoning for this was the much-celebrated political fact of India having a democratic tradition of elected government that makes the policies, takes the decisions, and decision- making following the due process through the democratic channel. This allegation being in line with the idea of protecting the procedure of democracy gave the government the change to justify their dear ears to the movement by stating that the street ‘capturing’ and demands was undemocratic – therefore the argument of creating a political party that could legitimzie the demands served as a crucial point in achieving the demands proposed. On the launch of the AAP party, the leader of the party stated that they were not up for power, but wanted power to change the system not only to replace the government. He further stated that they did not give up the Jan Lokpal Bill movement, but paved a more progressive way for this bill to succeed realizing that change only comes through politics. In an interview with a newspaper, Arvind Kejriwal stated the following: “Initially we did not start out wanting to contest an election. For two years now we have been asking the UPA government for just one thing, to pass the Lokpal bill. They said, if you want one, why don’t you enter Parliament and pass the bill yourself?”. With this AAP challenged the political establishment in Delhi by announcing that they were going to enter the race themselves and contest the state election in Delhi and promised to go national for the general elections of 2014 (Singh, 2013,(A. Kumar, 2013, p. 13).