Other facets of Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement

By Kiran Karnik Independent Policy & Strategy Analyst

Much has been written about Anna's pals (Team Anna), people (the "movement") and people's pal (civil society) - as also a semi-translation of the last: Lokpal.

However, some facets have not evoked the depth of attention that they deserve. Certainly, Anna was little-known outside his home state when his protest began at Jantar Mantar; nor is he a particularly charismatic leader or a great orator. . Yet, one pined for a genuine public-service broadcaster, as counterpoint to the all-powerful market-driven media.

What, then, accounts for his - or the movement's - appeal? Corruption itself - especially the type that affects the "common man" on a day-to-day basis - is, after all, not a new phenomenon in India. So, was it the timing: the fact that "nothing can stop an idea whose time has come"?

Many have looked at the sociopolitical and economic factors that triggered the movement, and these are undoubtedly major contributors; but, was there also an underlying psychological element? For many years now, across divides of caste, class and community, the commonest "other" - disliked, distrusted and perceived as being corrupt, if not criminal - has been the politician.

So, an agitation directed primarily against the political class, was bound to evoke support. Also, to a vast number of people - possibly a majority - the State (identified mainly as politicians in or out of government, and the administration) is perceived as being exploitative and often oppressive.

This image of politicians and officialdom, even if it is an exaggerated caricature, is probably the conducive psychological soil within which the agitation took easy root and flourished. Ominously, this is also a nurturing environment for both anarchism and fascism.

Arguably, this was India's first media-fuelled movement, through wall-to-wall 24x7 coverage (one estimate was that it made for over 80% of content on TV news channels). The known (but little discussed) agenda-setting power of the media was amplified by the positive feedback cycle between coverage (drawing crowds) and crowds (getting coverage).

The mindset of the TV editors, in an intensely competitive media market, ensures that most channels cover the same issue, enforcing a common agenda on a very diverse audience. If the issue to be covered has visual dimensions, that seems to immediately add to its news-worthiness; and, if it is easily accessible, so much the better.

Avisual spectacle in the cities was certainly a god-send for TV. The key players making statements that could be from the pen of a Bollywood dialoguewriter not only added to the audio dimension, but provided grist for the shouting matches (outdoing Parliament) that masquerade as "panel discussions". The media was, clearly, amajor factor and an amplifier.

In fairness to TV, despite some anchors being blatantly partisan - participant, rather than moderator - almost all channels gave a fair airing to different shades of opinion