Tags:
Journalism of Courage
When it burst into public consciousness earlier this year,the India Against Corruption movement appeared to be led by a team that instinctively understood each other,despite their differences. They came from a similar gene pool and had benefited from largely similar opportunities,they felt the same frustration with aspects of the state,they shared a common vocabulary,and the same burning priorities. They were united in their determination to enact a maximalist,under-thought version of the Lokpal bill,and anything that got in the way,like Parliaments prerogative to draft and enact legislation after full debate,was roughly dismissed. Parliament was an empty abstraction to Team Anna,which imagined itself as speaking for the people. It presumed to prescribe a one-shot solution to all that ails the nation,and anyone who resisted,they said,was complicit in corruption.
Even that limited mission,led by a like-minded team,has foundered. Like it or not,they have had to move to Level Two greater complexity has been thrust on them as they make decisions about the nature of their engagement. As new details emerged,of Arvind Kejriwals unpaid debt to the government,or Kiran Bedis unorthodox accounting,or the Bhushans properties and political views,they have had to contemplate ethical grey zones. Now,they appreciate the right to a fair hearing a right that they would have denied others in their rush to judgment,their sense of moral superiority. Differences have cropped up,some personal,some ideological. It has been a demonstration of Team Annas own bankruptcy of ideas,its inability to hold together when confronted with a difficult thought. Personalities and egos are chafing,and several team members have openly expressed their disagreements with each other. For Team Anna,this should be lesson in what only liberal democracy can accomplish the balancing of diverse opinion,with tolerance and freedom.
