The fight that Anna Hazare put up is a laudable feat despite all the criticisms that are being hurled his way. There might be problems with the bill and there might more problems with the committee that has been setup with drafting the bill but I’ve not heard of one argument which convinces me to believe that what has happened is ‘not for the better’.
Anyway, whatever we might achieve at the end of the struggle is irrelevant to the discussion that I want to have today. I am more interested in the philosophical point that was raised while I was debating this issue.
A friend argued, “Corruption or the ‘chalta hai attitude’ is a weakness within us, and not a battle to be fought. Since when have moral issues been resolved through external wars?”
To which I replied, “Wasn’t the Holocaust a major reason for fighting the second world war? Isn’t the rampage the US has begun for after 9/11 justified as fighting for a moral cause? What was the reason that Gandhiji stood for against the British? Freedom, which I suppose is a moral cause. If you consider fighting weakness within yourself then you have to stage a battle with it to overcome it. So individually or as a collective moral issues and weaknesses are far more ‘effectively’ fought if you stage a ‘battle’ (perhaps of the non-violent kind)”.
At the end of which, it struck me that this debate actually stands as some wisdom gained! If you want to fight those weaknesses then go stage a battle. What Anna Hazare enabled through his fast was precisely that, a chance to go on a battle.
Deeksha recently wrote an excellent article on the Chalta Hai attitude and the ways to counter it. She says, “At an individual level we need to realize that it is chalta hai because we let it be so! The nature of this problem and its various manifestations in public life is such that it thrives because we become a part of it and let it flourish through us…. If we do not take the responsibility of dealing with it in time, it may just be the start of multi-faced crisis for us as a nation.”
Sitting around and individually challenging your beliefs (in your own head) is a great idea for self-development but never would you be able to achieve what was achieved as a collective under the leadership of Hazare.
Really want to achieve something? Go fight those weaknesses in a battle.
Yes, I think moral progress is mostly made through tremendous struggles — freedom of speech, ending slavery, women’s liberation, gay liberation have all been the result of courageous activism a la Anna Hazare. I can’t think of any examples where everybody had an internalized debate and then suddenly all decided to change their minds on some important moral issue all at the same time.
To make a difference you have to go out and actually make your case. It’s not just the most effective way — it’s the *only* way.
Hello Akshat
Of course every point you wrote is right. We cannot predict anything beforehand, our good actions or even our bad actions but it is great that someone has at least taken the stand and gave the platform to people to stand together. It was heart-whelming to see people standing everywhere for one cause besides cricket. But I don’t know why, I may be wrong but masses in India are more emotional rather than logical? And this case too it was not logic but emotions that made people to stand together. And I am still to figure out where MORALS lie between emotions and logics. It was not that people applied their brains to actually what happened, but they were there like a chain reaction, which I admit is not bad but rather than self- respect and self recognition, it is the infested idea and not their own, which in long run may be bad for the growth of country. I have been glued to all kinds of reports when Anna Hazare stood there standing without food and I really salute him for his bravery from the bottom of my heart, I am not doubtful of his action but action of lakhs of people who were standing besides him. In the long run it may be a good sign but it can also be the wrong sign too. But any kind of prejudice will not help, but only thing that matters is that someone shook lakhs and lakhs of lazy but brilliant bones and minds. Now those brains were acting out of emotions, logic or MORALS, I am still not sure…………..
I think you raise an interesting point. Emotions were involved and may be they were supported by logic and morals. I suppose to stir a revolution in India, one needs to mix all these three and some religious hocus-pocus too.
Hmm…. It is religion that should be kept home ..We have seen this before in 1947…got independence but with our limbs amputated..