AAP and Down: The Rise and Fall of the Aam Aadmi Party
By Mayank Gandhi and Shrey Shah
()
Politics
Indian Politics
Lokpal Bill
Aam Aadmi Party
Leadership
Political Intrigue
Grassroots Movement
Reluctant Hero
Underdog Story
Power Corrupts
Fall From Grace
Corruption in Politics
David Vs. Goliath
Whistleblower
Betrayal of Trust
Anti-Corruption Movement
Activism
Power Struggle
Arvind Kejriwal
Democracy
About this ebook
Authored by a former member of the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) National Executive, AAP & Down is an in-depth account of the emergence and sudden unspooling of one of India’s most closely watched parties.
The story of AAP is one of troughs and crests. After capturing the imagination of over a billion Indians, and winning a landslide victory in the 2015 Delhi elections, a seemingly indestructible party began to dangerously teeter. What just happened? How did a party—born of the idealistic India Against Corruption (IAC) movement—get ravaged by in-fighting and accusations of wrongdoing? What provoked the abrupt ouster of two party veterans, Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan? What accounted for the wave of ignoble defeats across not just Punjab and Goa but also AAP’s own home, Delhi?
Here is a book that reveals all—from the clashes and intrigues that beset the IAC movement to the goings-on during the closed-door meetings of AAP. But beyond chronicling events, thus far undisclosed, AAP & Down analyzes the dispositions of the leaders who had once promised a better India—from a volatile Anna Hazare to an autocratic Arvind Kejriwal—to highlight how the party’s undoing was linked to the flaws of its leading men.
Even while recounting the true story of a party, here is a book that presents the story of India—of how a country, plagued by scams and scandals, dared to unite under IAC and overthrow the corrupt. In this, there is a lesson for AAP—the book emphatically reminds the party that its best chance of revival lies in reinvesting faith in this nation’s citizens.
Mayank Gandhi
Mayank Gandhi is a social activist from India. He was previously a member of the core committee in the India Against Corruption movement, and a national executive member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Around 2011, Gandhi became a part of the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement and a member of its 24-person "core committee", which was officially the full extent of the movement in a formal organisational sense. Gandhi also served as a member of the national executive of the AAP until 2015, besides acting as the party's head in Maharashtra. His unit was disbanded because of differences with the party chief Arvind Kejriwal. In 2015, he resigned from the party's national executive.
Related to AAP and Down
Related ebooks
35 Days: How Politics In Maharashtra Changed Forever In 2019 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Inside Parliament: Views from the Front Row Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFrom Lucknow to Lutyens: The Power and Plight of Uttar Pradesh Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Steel Frame: A History of the IAS Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Beyond The Lines: An Autobiography Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Contenders: Who Will Lead India Tomorrow? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Indian Federalist Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5JP in Jail: An Uncensored Account Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBattling for India: A Citizen’s Reader Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Tide in the Affairs of Men: A Public Servant Remembers Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDemonetization: Modi's Political Masterstroke? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Crusader: How Modi Won 2019 Elections Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Fractured Freedom: A Prison Memoir - A Story of Passion, Commitment and a Search for Justice and Freedom Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5India Now and in Transition Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWho Is Bharat Mata? On History, Culture and the Idea of India: Writings by and on Jawaharlal Nehru Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Why India Needs the Presidential System Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAmbedkar's India Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Trail of the Tiger: Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray: A Journey Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Punjab Story Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Icons: Men and Women who Shaped Today's India Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsKeeping India Safe: The Dilemma of Internal Security Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe RTI Story: Power to the People Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWar Room: The People, Tactics and Technology behind Narendra Modi's 2014 Win Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe First Lady President : Pratibha Patil Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIndia's National Disaster: Prime Minister Narendra Modi Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5India's Glocal Leader: Chandrababu Naidu Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Intertwined Lives: P.N. Haksar & Indira Gandhi Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5In Service of Emergent India: A Call to Honor Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Kargil Victory: Battles from Peak to Peak Rating: 1 out of 5 stars1/5The Truth of Babri Mosque Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Politics For You
The War on the West: How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Do Humankind's Best Days Lie Ahead? Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Gulag Archipelago: The Authorized Abridgement Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: Winner of the FT & McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award 2021 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Gulag Archipelago [Volume 1]: An Experiment in Literary Investigation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Fear: Trump in the White House Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity; THE SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Origins Of Totalitarianism Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Capitalism and Freedom Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A People's History of the United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Some People Need Killing: Longlisted for the Women's Prize for Non-Fiction Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Prince Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Stay Sane in an Age of Division: The powerful, pocket-sized manifesto Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Heretic's Manifesto: Essays on the Unsayable Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Optimism over Despair: On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Selected Works of Edward Said: 1966–2006 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe New Silk Roads: The Present and Future of the World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Kissinger: A Biography Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Political Correctness Gone Mad? Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The End of Imagination Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Daily Stoic: A Daily Journal On Meditation, Stoicism, Wisdom and Philosophy to Improve Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Reviews for AAP and Down
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
AAP and Down - Mayank Gandhi
Prologue
I WAS SITTING UNDER A TREE AND TALKING TO SOME OF the farmers of Parchundi—one of the fifteen villages we have adopted in Marathwada, Maharashtra for rural development. We were having an intense discussion about some impending post-monsoon work. From the corner of my eye, I could see Govind, one of the smartest boys of the village, fidgeting. He appeared uninterested in the goings-on. Each time the conversation paused, Govind seemed to want to say something, but the words would stall.
When the meeting ended, I asked, ‘Govind, what is it?’ Sheepishly, he looked at me and whispered, ‘Sir, tell me please, exactly kay zhala?’ (‘What exactly happened?’) All interest in our earlier discussion vanished as every face in the gathering lit up with expectation.
It was a question I had got used to hearing wherever I went:
Kay zhala?
Kya hua?
Shu thayu?
What happened?
Yes, what happened to you and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)?
In other words: How did the party splinter? Where did it lose its way? And what exactly compelled you—one of its founding leaders—to quit?
Thousands of books have been written, films made and historical volumes published with the details of India’s independence struggle. But very little has been written about what has been called India’s ‘second independence struggle’—a struggle almost synonymous with the creation of AAP and its promise to rescue a nation plagued by corruption. Equally little has been written about the party’s sudden implosion—and with it, the caving in of the dreams of a billion Indians for a new India.
Someone had to attend to this gap. Someone had to write about one of the most important phases in post-independent Indian history with knowledge, objectivity and insider information. Someone had to trace AAP’s meteoric rise and fall.
This book attempts to do that. It offers, not just bare-boned history, but a personal account and analysis of the events of the recent past, the minds of its protagonists—be it Arvind Kejriwal or Anna Hazare—and the ups and downs of one of India’s most controversial parties.
This is my truth and what I know of AAP.
1. How It All Began
‘I REQUEST MAYANK GANDHI TO LEAD THE INDIA AGAINST Corruption (IAC) movement in Maharashtra,’ Arvind Kejriwal announced at the National Conference for the Forum for Fast Justice in January 2011.
He continued, ‘Some of us have drafted a powerful Lokpal Bill that can root out corruption from the country. We discussed it with almost all political parties and asked them to take it up in Parliament, but no leader seems keen to even consider it. If implemented, this Bill can put many corrupt politicians in jail; therefore, we do not expect any political party to support it. To force the politicians to pass the anti-corruption bill, a mass movement, bigger than any this nation has seen, will have to be started.’
I was the moderator of a panel where Arvind was delivering a seventeen-minute-long powerful talk about the endemic corruption tearing into the nation and how the IAC movement could free people from the oppression of the corrupt. Arvind’s passionate call stirred every patriotic fibre of my being.
Prior to announcing my name, Arvind had had a short discussion with me. ‘Mayank, I really think you should take charge of the movement in Maharashtra. This is a decisive time. The country needs your full involvement.’ Arvind spoke in a manner I have come to associate with him—emphatic and persuasive. Before I could respond, he continued, ‘However, since this requires your undivided attention, I request you to disengage from any civil society group or party that you are associated with.’
Arvind was referring to my earlier association with an Andhra Pradesh-based civil society initiative, Lok Satta (2003-2007); this was his way to urging me to disengage from them and work only for IAC. I had heard of some differences between Arvind and the founder of Lok Satta, a brilliant ex-Indian administrative service (IAS) officer, Dr Jayaprakash Narayan (JP; not to be confused with the erstwhile Janata Party leader).
In any case, Arvind had little reason to be concerned. I confessed to him, ‘When I was a part of the Lok Satta movement in Maharashtra, there was a lot of petty and malicious politicking within the group. I quit a long time ago, disgusted with the bickering. I’m not a part of JP’s team.’
It turned out that Arvind had heard a number of positive things regarding my work, my style of functioning and my passion for swaraj from a range of people, including Manish Sisodia—and now that my commitments were clear, he looked relieved.
Arvind put his arm around my shoulder and smiled, ‘Mayank, Maharashtra—especially Mumbai—is really crucial. A lot will depend on you.’
*
I had known Arvind Kejriwal since 2003, when I worked closely with activist Anna Hazare for the passing of the Maharashtra Right to Information (RTI). Due to our common interest in activism, we remained in touch off and on. Arvind was doing some very interesting work in Delhi, and I was doing something similar in Mumbai.
While I had met Arvind only a few times, I had heard many inspiring stories about him. For instance, during his avatar as an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, he’d regularly expose fellow officers who’d ask for bribes. While working with the Income Tax (IT) department, he was also operating as one of the founders of a grass-roots activism organization called Parivartan. He’d visit the Sundar Nagari slums of Delhi, attend to the grievances of citizens, and resolve their concerns, whether this had to do with getting a ration card or common income tax and electricity complaints. Arvind used RTI to help people get their work done in government offices without paying bribes, and he organized public hearings to hold government officials accountable.
There are two stories involving Arvind and Parivartan that are particularly motivating. As all of us know, IT refunds can get held up for a variety of reasons, and the citizen gets severely inconvenienced. To resolve this, each time there was an impasse, a team of Parivartan volunteers would meet the concerned officer along with the assessee and ask for the date of refund. On the said date, they would reach the IT office with musical instruments. If the refund was refused, they’d sit on the floor of the office, sing songs, beat drums and clang cymbals, till the refunds were made.
Another story involved an individual who was asked for a bribe of Rs 25,000 by an IT officer to pass his refund order. Parivartan volunteers, along with select media entities, took a procession led by drums and cymbals, carrying a cheque of Rs 25,000 to pay the bribe. The officer, as expected, ran away from the back door.
I was bowled over by Arvind’s approach and audacity. I became his admirer.
Swaraj was the common passion that I shared with Arvind. Swaraj means empowerment, and it seeks the participation of common people across all aspects of day-to-day decision-making in governance. Swaraj’s foundation is transparency, as also holding people in power accountable to the collective will of the people. ‘Take away power from the government and give it to the people,’ I would say during my speeches.
Among other things, Arvind was a part of the Aruna Roy-led National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), an umbrella body of various activists working for systemic reforms in the country. After the murder of some RTI activists and whistle-blowers, NCPRI members decided to work for an institutional solution. Arvind Kejriwal; eminent lawyer, Prashant Bhushan; retired Supreme Court judge, Santosh Hegde; and former law minister, Shanti Bhushan were mandated to prepare a comprehensive Bill that would not only protect whistle-blowers but also deter corruption and redress the grievances of citizens. These four brilliant minds sat together and prepared a formidable draft Bill.
This draft Lokpal (later called Jan Lokpal and also the Citizen’s Ombudsman Bill)¹ proposed an independent, autonomous body, along the lines of the Election Commission (EC) or the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, that would neither be under the government control nor get influenced by it. Besides granting this autonomous body the right to investigate public servants in matters of corruption, the Bill sought to provide for the time-bound delivery of public services via citizen charters; encourage complete transparency in the issuance of contracts, leases and licences; and put an end to insidious forms of favour-mongering.
*
Back in January 2011, when Arvind said, ‘Mayank, Maharashtra—especially Mumbai—is really crucial. A lot will depend on you,’ I was compelled to reassess my life goals.
The fact was that, around that time, I was deeply immersed in spiritual practice and meditation. Arvind’s passionate plea shook my conscience. ‘What right do I have to indulge in my selfish desire for spiritual ecstasy and personal evolution, when the country needs my sacrifice?’ I questioned.
Here was a country that was angry. People were growing increasingly agitated as corruption stories hit media headlines. One could hear the distant drums of a major ‘dharma-yuddh’ (a righteous war) against the inimical forces ravaging the country. The time had come to abandon my personal quest and join the battle.
I agreed to take on the responsibility of Maharashtra.
Behind the S.P. Jain Auditorium, seated on a stone ledge, buoyed by steaming cups of coffee, both Arvind and I spoke at great length of our resolve to transform politics in the country. Politics influences policies and decisions. To alter the destinies and lives of crores of our countrymen, we needed to make serious changes in the way politicians got elected and operated. I said, ‘All the rot in politics begins with the way elections are fought and won. Our aim should be to bring in electoral reforms. We need to involve the entire country in this yajna, this purifying ritual.’
Arvind had a slightly different approach. ‘Mayank, while I agree that electoral reforms are most crucial for the transformation of the country, it might be best to focus on corruption right now. Corruption is what provokes people—they’re livid, what with so many scams unfolding. With corruption as our one-point agenda, we will create a massive movement. Once people come together, we can work on electoral reforms, too.’
It made sense. I consented. Then, I raised another important issue. ‘I have seen many NGOs up-close. And I am wary of depending on the existing ones for support because many are compromised, corrupt or ineffective. I see real value in directly involving common people in the movement.’
Arvind nodded, then said, ‘For our appeal to reach common people, it is important to have leaders these common people can identify with.’ I was listening carefully even as evening fell. Arvind continued: ‘We have brought together some very popular leaders in the movement already, including Baba Ramdev, Sri Sri Ravishankar and Swami Agnivesh.’
I raised an immediate concern: ‘The presence of orange robes—these swamis—might make some segments of the country suspicious. What do you think?’
Arvind took some time and replied, ‘That’s a valid concern, but they have large followings, and right now we need dedicated numbers. We can see how best to deal with the saffron brigade later.’
As I later learnt, this was typical Arvind’s style of functioning—use someone for the short term and start working on his exit parallelly.
I persisted, ‘Instead of having multiple leaders, don’t you think it will be better to have one person as the face of the movement? Collective leadership is good, but someone needs to be first among equals. In addition, such a leader should not be associated with any ideology and should have a reputation for battling dishonesty.’
Arvind looked at me knowingly. ‘Who are you suggesting?’
‘How about Anna Hazare?’ I asked ‘I’ve worked with him, and I know his strengths and limitations.’
Arvind seemed excited. He said, ‘Anna is more than familiar with the Lokpal Bill . . . we have worked together a few times on it. But I want to know what your candid analysis is before making him the face of the movement.’
I could see that Arvind was seriously considering my suggestion. He was trying to understand my views more clearly, and sought cues not just in my statements and my voice but also in my expressions. Generally, I do not mince my words, but keenly aware that anything I said now would have huge consequences, I spoke in a measured way. Besides, Anna is a complex personality—so it was necessary to share a nuanced assessment, highlighting the good and the bad.
I started with his obvious qualities of great strength. ‘For one, Anna is a role model for rural development. I have personally been to his village and have seen the extraordinary transformation he has brought about. Secondly, for a generation that has grown up with the stories of Gandhiji, Anna, with his Gandhian appearance and utterances, is a modern-day icon. Third, he is a very principled man. He has fought and won bitter battles against corrupt politicians, has fasted for the removal of dishonest ministers and officers and has ensured that the guilty get penalized. He is the tallest anti-corruption activist in the country. For IAC, we cannot get a more appropriate leader.’
Arvind concurred.
I continued, ‘What I find most amazing is Anna’s connect with the people—whether these are common men on the street or the politicians of parties. He has that indefinable quality called charisma, and when he says, "Dil diya hai, jaan bhi denge, ae watan tere liye (
I have given my heart and will give my life for this nation"), I have seen the audience get emotional.’
Arvind smiled. ‘This is great. Why did you stop working with him? Is there something that you are not telling me?’ He looked at me questioningly.
This was going to be tough. Was I to tell all, or was it best to allow Arvind to discover some things for himself once he started working with Anna?
I hesitated, ‘Well . . .’
2. Anna, the Enigmatic Leader
AS I PAUSED, ARVIND’S HEART RATE MUST HAVE CLIMBED.
Being honest was the best option. There was no point in hesitating. It was best to present the facts of my earlier interactions with Anna and his team, and let Arvind be the judge.
I started speaking slowly, choosing my words deliberately: ‘There are four things that you will have to take into consideration while dealing with Anna. One is that his concepts of democracy, politics and nation-building are simplistic and vague. Second, he is a very stubborn man, and once he makes up his mind it is very difficult to change his views. Third, his style of working is very whimsical. Last, he is easily influenced by the people—many of them questionable—who surround him.’
Arvind likely had personal acquaintance with some of these aspects of Anna’s personality, but he continued picking my brain anyway: ‘So how do you think we can tackle this?’
After thinking for a while, I continued, ‘Arvind, if you wish to get anything done from Anna, you will have to ensure that, at all times, there is one senior person from our side with him . . . this will reduce the influence of his team, and will also appeal to his ego and sense of self-importance. Even this won’t be easy. Anna is a difficult man to work with, and has a record of not getting along with anyone over a long time.’
‘What about his political affiliations?’ Arvind inquired.
I responded, ‘While Anna has contacts across the political spectrum, he does not belong to any ideological school.’
‘That’s good, isn’t it?’ Arvind asked.
‘Yes,’ I answered. ‘Despite all that I have told you, the good in him outweighs the bad. By far, he is the best person to lead the anti-corruption movement.’
Arvind said, ‘I think so, too. Let me go and meet Anna and see what he has to say. And thanks for speaking so candidly. I will keep everything you’ve said in mind.’
Thus ended our conversation.
On the way back home, I remembered my first meeting with Anna in 2003, much before the IAC movement.
Anna had planned to go on a fast unto death from 9 August 2003. His demand: the resignation of four Maharashtra Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) ministers accused of corruption.
I went to meet him and asked, ‘Anna, how will the country benefit if four ministers resign?’
There was something magnetic about Anna even back then. He looked at me with his innocent eyes, and very politely asked, ‘So what do you recommend?’
Excited that he was willing to listen to me—someone he was meeting for the first time—I suggested, ‘Don’t just demand resignations, ask for institutional reforms, too.’ Anna was listening intently. I was encouraged to speak further: ‘First, you should ask for the passage of Right to Information. Second, ask for an Act that regulates the transfer of government officers by giving them a fixed term. Third, demand reforms for empowering the gram sabha in villages. Finally, seek transparency and accountability in the administration.’
I continued, ‘Anna, we all know of the existence of transfer lobbies that charge huge bribes in exchange for plum postings in various departments. The rot has spread wide and deep. Honest bureaucrats are terrified of corrupt politicians who have the power to arbitrarily transfer them. It is necessary to have fixed terms for A-class officials at the very least.’
Anna heard me with his eyes closed. This was his normal style of engaging with a conversation. After I finished speaking, he opened his eyes, grunted, nodded and went silent. I waited for some time for him to speak, but he seemed to be lost in his own thoughts. I left.
The next day, he announced to the press that in addition to the resignation of the four NCP ministers, he was going to demand the four institutional reforms I had discussed with him.
On hearing from the media that Anna had demanded institutional reforms, I was exhilarated. I rushed to meet him to thank him. That’s when I was introduced to his small cohort of advisors. I asked them: ‘What are Anna’s views on the demands? Has he briefed you? Have you worked out the provisions in the Bill? How does Anna see this getting executed? Do you need any help from me?’
His team members seemed amused by my questions. ‘Anna does not make Bills or give details. It is for the government to make the suggestions, and Anna will say yes or no,’ one of them sniggered.
Now, it was my turn to be incredulous. ‘We need to be clear about what we want, don’t you think?’ I asked.
But the entire lot seemed oblivious to the fact that Anna needed to prepare. The more I interacted with Anna’s team, the more I was flabbergasted by their sloppy approach.
There was also the fear that Anna, by accusing ministers from the NCP, was exposing himself. In the corporate world, we were trained to consider all possible forms of retaliation, including defamation suits, and make plans to preempt them. So, I told Team Anna, ‘I hope your leader has considered the possibility of repercussions when he makes such accusations.’ The team dismissively laughed at my fears. No one had even considered the fallout. I was getting jittery. Were these people smug or plain foolish?
Being new to Anna and his team, I was not able to press beyond a point.
The stage was set for the 9 August fast at Azad Maidan. Anna came with a few hundred villagers and began his fast unto death. There was a lot of media attention, and people started visiting the activist-leader. His popularity was evident even among urban citizens and in the media.
I was fortunate to have learnt my concepts of democracy and reform while working with the highly organized and introspective JP. He was a brilliant IAS officer from Andhra Pradesh, who had worked in high position within the system. After many years of service, he realized that it was better to be outside the system and act as a pressure point for government reforms. I was heavily influenced by his deeply researched, rational solutions to improve the country.
Sometimes, I used to think: if only JP’s understanding of governance could be downloaded and transferred to Anna’s brain, the nation would really benefit! To make this fantasy a reality, I brought together Anna and JP. On my request, JP stayed back in Mumbai for many days to support Anna and his demands. For hours, the two would talk about the state of the nation, and I would listen to their fascinating conversations, feeling some proprietorial pride.
There was one particularly interesting conversation between Anna and JP that gave an insight into the way they thought.
JP said, ‘Annaji, people like you are born but rarely. Instead of working in one village, if you were to take up 100 villages, would it not be better?’
Anna replied, ‘I want to make one village 100 per cent, rather than spreading myself too thin and not doing complete justice to my work.’
‘But, Annaji, if you contribute 100 per cent to one village, your net value is 100. While if you contribute even 60 per cent across 100 villages, your value is close 6,000—sixty times more,’ JP reasoned.
These were captivating perspectives coming from two great leaders. Over time, I came to realize that there were two different schools of thought in civil society.
On one hand was the Anna school of thought which proposed that to change the nation, one had to change people. The belief was this: because systems are made and run by individuals, if people change, then the systems that run the country will change, too.
On the other hand, there was JP’s school of thought—he (and others like him) suggested that systemic reforms were the only way to improve the nation. The system had to be designed such that there was an incentive for good behaviour and a strong disincentive to bad/corrupt behaviour. It wasn’t civil society’s role to change the character of people—that was best left to religion and parents. Civil society’s role was to force the system to reform.
I found merit in JP’s stance. In my view, India has some of the most wonderful individuals; offers excellent upbringing; and is spiritually inclined. If, in spite of this,