The topic was, "New politics is ideal for opposition, not governance", and the trio were, not surprisingly, for the motion. Speaking against it were AAP leader Yogendra Yadav, activist Aruna Roy and writer-journalist Shobhaa De. On paper, it seemed an unequal contest, given the vast experience of the seasoned politicians, each an extremely effective debater in Parliament.
But when TOI's Executive Editor Arindam Sen Gupta, the moderator, asked the audience who had won, the show of hands was overwhelmingly for the team of Roy, De and Yadav. It was a well-deserved victory. "The winners had come prepared, the losers were complacent that their stature will see them through," said a Tolly Club veteran.
The format of the debate was that each speaker was allowed five minutes to speak, after which other speakers were allowed to make two interjections. However, the interjections soon turned into free-flowing conversations. With the audience and speakers both thoroughly enjoying this, the moderator decided to let it continue, within acceptable time limits.
Khurshid, the first to speak, began on a humorous note. Taking on De for writing that "his Oxbridge demeanour had slipped," he narrated a story about two Oxford professors. "One told the other, 'It's terrible. Today, in the class on sociobiology, a couple were snogging in the last row.' 'Really?' replied the other. I didn't know we had classes in sociobiology'."
Khurshid then targeted "new politics". "It is amazing. Even after being elected, they wake up every morning saying, 'what shall I agitate about today'? Somebody told a minister, 'You're supposed to govern'. He replied, 'I've dedicated my life to not letting the minister do any work. I'm certainly not going to let this minister do any work'."
Though Khurshid's wit raised a few chuckles, it provoked charges of being flippant by the other speakers (later, an audience member wryly thanked the club for organizing 'Comedy night with Salman').
Roy, the next to speak, said she would be serious as governance is serious business. She pointed out that elections and governance cannot be the hegemony of a few. But she also mentioned that Mahatma Gandhi did not take political office, choosing instead to occupy the space of political action. "This continues to be a valid role even today. The Right to Information, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the Domestic Violence bill all arose in a space outside the political mainstream but resonated within it."
Roy added that the country is fed up of "non-delivery", which has led to a search for political alternatives. 'New politics' is actually a revival of 'older politics'. But 'new politics' will have to govern. It's a boring business, as I can tell you, having been a bureaucrat myself. But boredom is part of governance."
Yechury took the floor next. "Anna Hazare, Aruna Roy and AAP all reflect a churning taking place in India today. But this should lead to improvement of governance. All of us have emerged from movements and have worked together on many issues. But the question is, are you working to improve the structure or to undermine it? If you want to undermine it, then that is unacceptable."
Yadav interjected to ask since when the Left had come to share what it once described as the ruling establishment's fear of popular movements. Yechury replied, "After 30 years, maybe people of West Bengal weren't satisfied. But when given a chance to govern, we fulfilled our promises. We didn't let the movement slide into anarchy." Witty cuts and thrusts keep audience riveted
De, the next speaker, launched a withering attack on conventional politics. "There are 70 million unemployed young people who are restless. I haven't heard anyone use the 'J' word - jobs. These young people want jobs, not jokes. I haven't heard the female narrative. All we hear about is dynasties and megalomaniacs boasting about their chest size. Kejriwal is a catalyst, telling us there is hope for the future. If we don't vote for him, we will be stuck with the same old people who have ruined this country."
Khurshid was quick to interject. "You talk about jobs but how will you create them? What is AAP's stand on foreign direct investment? I'm surprised you think no one speaks about jobs. If I'd known earlier, I could simply have borrowed Mr Chidambaram's budget speech and read it out again."
The attack on AAP continued as Prasad took his turn to speak. "I never knew you would lose patience in just 49 days. AAP's promises appear to be a case of very spurious marketing. When AAP had to take office, it conducted an SMS poll and went to mohalla sabhas. But it didn't do any such thing when Kejriwal decided to quit. My problem with practitioners of new politics is that they could not graduate to becoming accountable administrators."
This sparked off a series of interjections. Roy said, "I believe the worst form of anarchy is riots perpetrated or ignored by the State. As an Indian citizen, I want the same questions asked of everybody involved in riots." Prasad replied that Modi had been absolved by the courts after a lengthy legal process while others had been booked and this reflected the power of democracy.
Yadav asked, "Does graduating to becoming an administrator mean locking yourself up in an office and becoming inaccessible to the people who elected you?" He added, "Arvind Kejriwal was defying the constitutional absurdity of a government not being allowed to exercise control over the police which is meant to protect the very people whom the government has been elected to serve."
Yadav was the last speaker. "AAP is a principal carrier but we have no monopoly over new politics. We are limited by circumstances, human failings and our own errors." He then spoke of the three elements of 21st century democracy: monitoring of democracy, deliberative democracy and participative democracy. New politics seeks to revive the spirit of volunteerism, he said, adding, "People are being consulted about formation of laws and their everyday concerns are being foregrounded. Maybe AAP made mistakes on power and water, but I think it was the first time these issues were being put on top of the agenda."
He concluded,"Errors are made during all great experiments in human history. But in the anxiety over form and style, in the anxiety to snub a small political rival, let us not extinguish the hope this country has had after a very long time."
There was a scramble to ask questions as the moderator invited audience queries. One lady told Yadav she was shattered when AAP defended khaps. Yadav replied that the same speech by him had been reported by the local papers as condemning khaps, while the English-language papers claimed he had defended them. "My exact statement was that as long as khaps are resolving disputes through consensus, there is nothing wrong with them. But if they are employing coercive methods to break the law, then it is indefensible, especially if they are committing murders and killing young women. That must be stopped," he said.
Another audience member tried to ask Yadav which category he thought the khaps predominantly fell into. But by then, the moderator had signaled that it was time to end the debate, even though people thronged the speakers and engaged in spirited conversation with them long after the votes had been counted and the verdict delivered.
0 comments:
Post a Comment