On the sidelines of Anna Hazare’s movement to root out corruption from the body politic of India, the youth was found saying that they have not seen Gandhi or Jayprakash Narayan and that Anna is their Gandhi and he is their JP. These are indubitably welcome signs of repoliticisation of the urban youth that has lent the greatest deal of support to Anna’s movement. In the aftermath of introduction of Neo-liberal economic system in the country, successive governments have tried to bulldoze the youth with strong administrations of purely consumption based ethics,. Now that the ministrations of inactivity and recession from mainstream, as planned by the political parties, which though have youth wings but have clipped their wings, seem to have lost their virility the urban youth has represented a new face of activism and recharged politicization. But it seems to be tested as to how long the youth is ready to go that extra mile with Anna. It now seems feasible that a Lokpal Bill will get enacted in the Parliament but will it put paid to corruption? The battle may be won, the war is protracted. Interestingly, a movement of 4 days is being presented as a full-fledged revolution.

It has become almost customary now to liken Anna with JP. Well, Anna must be credited for infusing a spirit of activism in a youth that was almost in deep slumber. So people see Anna’s Jantar Mantar gathering as a reminder of the JP movement. Also Anna has given vent to the public anger over the spate of scams unearthed successively, almost at an overwhelming rate. But the comparison with JP ends there. The difference with JP is like the vast expanse of air between earth and sky. JP was an original political and social thinker and philosopher. Anna is just an activist. Anna and his civil society allies have limited objective. Of getting a strong Lokpal Bill passed, while JP aimed for total revolution.

The most striking difference is that while Anna himself may be called the originator of this movement JP did nothing like that. Anna sat on hunger strike and the media and interment coverage and connectivity gave the movement its steam. JP on the other hand was the unanimous choice of the students who were already agitated and once he took the invitation and decided to lead the movement the very nature of the movement took a radical turn and became the biggest mass agitation in independent India.  JP admitted to be the leader as he thought that the government had failed to insure the interests of the poor masses. He was not only supported by urban educated youth but also by the rural peasantry, working and toiling classes of India. He had some of the most experienced political activists from all shades of ideological affiliations who had left their parties to put out their neck for a national cause. On the other hand Anna has been the leader of just the educated urban class and also the people by his side are largely rookie activists. The moment he lauded Modi and Nitish, people challenged his very moral authority to lead. All this means that Anna has failed to bridge the ideological gaps between his followers and associates.

Jayprakash wanted to change the very plight of Indian villages through his ideals of Bhoodan and Sarvodaya. He had rationally assimilated western and Gandhian ideals of growth and wanted to change the face of Indian villages through application of modern technology. He had a vision that was holistic. Even in 1974 the nation was battling inflation, corruption and scarcity of essential food items, but JP did not confine his agenda to just these problems. Addressing a rally at Patna, he declared that it is a revolution that is intended and not mere change or dissolution of Assembly.

Those who want to liken Anna to JP must remember that the backbone of any movement comprises of ideology, public support, leadership, organizational strength and goals. And on these parameters Anna does not stand in front of JP. Actually the youth of India did not witness the Independence Struggle nor did see Gandhi in action. At the outset of the movement it was said that Anna is today’s Gandhi. Gandhi is the Father of Nation. He was given this title by Subhash Chandra Bose even when and after, he had to leave Congress due to his differences with Gandhi. Gandhi was such a tall personality and a man of such ideological and personal integrity that all the leaders kneeled before him. Even his detractors admired him. Leaders like Patel and Nehru had differences with him, but he made no compromises with his ideological position. He always took all the sections of Indian society with him in his movements. He put his greatest and unflinching faith in the naïve and simple villagers of India. He went village to village sometimes all on foot to convince the villagers that the British were looting their motherland.

Indian Independence Struggle’s provenance lay in the villages of India. Gandhi made the intellectual Congress movement into a mass movement when he came to India in 1915. Earlier in South he waged ceaseless struggle against the exploitation and racial abuse of Indians. Arriving in India he took up the cause of the peasants, agricultural labourers and industrial workers and won the first victories of Indian national struggle. In 1921 he took the reins of Congress in hands and guided the Indian people to independence. But the story is not that simple and schematic. While in the struggle he believed that the source of slavery of India lay not just in political enslavement by the British but Indian culture and psychology must be revolutionized to attain the goal of freedom. Thus he waged numerous movements and struggles against economic and social evils of Indian society such as untouchability and communalism. He was not just an activist but a thorough political philosopher, a visionary. Thus he developed an insight into the nature of the colonial state and in consonance with his understanding formulated such strategies as disobedience and satyagraha. He understood that the goal would not be achieved by putting the colonial masters in the dock for an issue or two but that the government needs to be delegitimized at the very outset. He believed that making laws does not help what is really needed is a fundamental change at the psychological level. Just by leading a movement or two no one becomes Gandhi.

Anna ‘s movement was an urban movement. This lacked the support of deciding sections of Indian life, the peasants, workers, and minorities. His movement was conducted by social activists who are urban based and associated with one NGO or the other and some associated with movement given their narrow personal interests. His movement was made into a movement only by the internet and the media. The only item on the agenda-Lokpal Bill, made the movement too narrow in its aspirations. Had JP or Gandhi led this movement they would have talked surely of change in personal character of Indians too before pointing to the government. They would have pondered over the seminal question as to how, in spite of having laws against corruption, did the nation get into the mire of corruption?   These leaders would have emphasized the need for change at heart of the lawmakers and administrators.

There are differences between historical leaders and common leaders. JP and Gandhi aimed at holistic change. Their movements had ideological underpinnings and also relevance for the future of the nation. This is why JP and Gandhi used to be invited to lead. Rajkumar Shukla invited Gandhi to Motihari in 1917 and Gandhi won the indigo cultivators their legitimate rights. 1974, Bihar gave the call for change but JP was invited to lead the movement to greater and holistic heights. Anna could not expand beyond the educated urban crowds. Gandhi was the personality that even got the educated urban youth to go to the villages and dedicate their lives for village reconstruction but could Anna have moved his young supporters to do so is a self answered question. His young guns just sat on strike and kept talking to the media. Anna is neither Gandhi nor JP; Anna is Anna and we must keep him that way.

As mercurial was the rise of the movement, so has been its decline too. The movement has started showing internal cracks. As sson as he lauded Modi, his supports like Medha Patkar, Mallika Sarabhai and Aruna Rai challenged his leadership. This internal squabble cannot be ignored; any movement in the absence of a common ideology can go haywire.