Anna’s Movement: the Worrisome Muddle yet, Hope survives.

Immediately after what came out as Anna’s decision to work for providing a political alternative to our nation, we heard that Anna and the members of his team faced perceptual differences in adopting operational protocol and effective strategy, though they share the common quest to restructure our polity free from corruptions. Discordant voices have been used to muddle the things about the ‘movement’. I do not intend to focus on their perceptual differences, but I think such differences are not unusual. We know the great patriot Jean-Joseph Mounier, who had drafted the cahiers (‘notebooks’) presented to King Louis XVI, and was the author of, the Tennis Court Oath, and had been a major light of the third estate in the States General of 1789 that led the French Revolution, had resigned from the Assembly in order to highlight his differences with others on some vital points. But he worked with great vigour in his own way to take the revolution move forward. We had seen how during our Struggle for Freedom, after the1906, the new creative spirit of high nationalism revealed itself in the sharp differences of ideas and actions of our great leaders: Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lajpat Rai became ‘extremists’, whereas Surendranath Banerjea, Pheroze Shah Mehta, and Gokhale turned ‘moderates’. We all know how Subhas Chandra Bose differed from Mahatma Gandhi on many points pertaining to the strategies to be adopted. Bose became the Congress President against Gandh’s wish, and later he left the post fed up with the maneuverings of inner clique.
It is the ‘public protest’ that leads to a ‘movement’; it is the ‘movement’ from which emanates a ‘revolution’. Often we have seen, at dawn or dusk, a host of birds on wings to the east, or the west. They seldom grumble so long they are on their right course. The finest example of the synergic and symbiotic operation of the lines of ‘thought’ and ‘action” is Krishna representing the former, and Arjuna, the latter. Krishna guided, and Arjuna acted: though there is no harm if Krishna and Arjuna both think and act. Differences are good to run a vibrant ‘movement’ as they cross-fertilize to equip it with vision and verve. Within the shared ambit and reach, diverse experiments in creating protocols of actions, or the structuring and re-structuring of polity would show practical prudence. A ‘movement’ has its inner creative logic in marching towards its goals. It can annex more and more spheres of operations if experience teaches that as the only prudent course.
Seeing as things are emerging these days, my hope falters at the fate of this crusade against corruption. But even in the moments of dismay, we can recall what Krishna had told Arjuna when he asked Krishna, in the battlefield of Kurukshetra: of what worth is the entire endeavour if it seems likely to turn futile in the end. A ‘movement’, or a ‘revolution’ is a march with a mission towards the future. We are scripting our deeds only in the passing moments of the living present. What the Lord said is valid for all times as this states the very existential truth:

पार्थ न एव इह न अमुत्र विनाशः तस्य विद्यते
न हि कल्याण कृत कः चित् दुर्गतिं तात गच्छति
( ‘O, Partha (Arjuna), neither in this life nor hereafter is there destruction for him; for never does any one who does good, dear friend, tread the path of woe.’ Chapter VI.40 )
(by Shiva Kant Jha : see http://www.shivakantjha.org)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s