As for the section of the “mango people” which is their base of support, the Hindu component is likely be somewhat larger in Anna’s camp, especially if Baba Ramdev decides to lend him a hand. However, it will only create a marginal difference since there is no indication of a sizeable presence of groups other than Hindus in Kejriwal’s company, if only because the Muslims or Dalits do not constitute a major section of the urban middle class.

Apart from the composition of the two groups, what will be of interest is their mode of campaigning. Again, at least one prediction can be made – that it is unlikely that Anna will resort to fasts any more since these have lost their appeal because of overuse. As the Bombay high court pointed out during Anna’s flop show in Mumbai last December, what is satyagraha for one can be a nuisance for another. Similarly, it is open to question how long Kejriwal will persist with his levelling of allegations against the high and mighty, since his reluctance to have them tested in a court of law may begin to raise doubts about their veracity. Moreover, with Digvijay Singh, who had once described himself as a loose cannon, demanding answers from Kejriwal on questions such as the India Against Corruption (IAC)’s source of funds, there will be a few who will wonder about Kejriwal’s holier-than-thou attitude.

However, what is worth pondering as to why Anna and Kejriwal parted company, although their paths are the same – exposing the corrupt. Apart from personal factors, such as the fear of being upstaged by the other in the eyes of the media, and differences on the methods for reaching the goal, what first undermined the movement, and then brought about the separation, was an overweening egoism. The crudest expression of this bloated self-esteem was the slogan “Anna is India” and the assertion that Anna was above parliament. It was also evident on the Jantar Mantar stage where Kejriwal’s pomposity made the CPI’s A.B. Bardhan tell him that he was not the repository of all wisdom.

What is noteworthy, however, is that the vanity and conceit, which made Anna and Kejriwal go their own ways, are an integral part of their approach. Essentially, their megalomania is based on the belief that the political class is beyond redemption. Indeed, this was the point that Kejriwal tried to make at the press conference, where he targeted Nitin Gadkari and spoke of the BJP president’s links with Sharad Pawar. Since an outlook of this nature calls for the rejection of the entire system, it is worth asking whether this maximalist approach is an invitation to anarchism.

On the face of it, the IAC’s “vision” document extols grassroots democracy since it leaves the choice of the party’s electoral candidates to the “people” and wants all key issues of national interest to be decided on the basis of referendums. However, leaving the selection of candidates virtually to the market place, and frequently turning to referendums, will make the party’s functioning seem like a big fat Indian wedding. Such populism can draw applause at a public meeting, but its impracticality can lead to, in the words of the anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, a “collective, invisible dictatorship of those who are allied in the name of one principle”.

Arguably, the IAC at present is such an “invisible dictatorship”, since it is not an elected body and, as the appearance of the same few people on every occasion – Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Kumar Vishwas – shows, it is run by a tightly-knit group, which is not accountable to anyone. Anna’s outfit is the same. It also has its own set of rules including flogging a drunk, which those outside Ralegan Siddhi will consider outrageous. Anna’s advice to his followers to slap erring district collectors falls in the same category.

What this means is that, as of now, their policies reflect the dictionary definition of anarchy – that laws and governments are not necessary. Anna’s denigration of politicians as bikaau or purchasable and Kejriwal’s burning of electricity bills, not to mention Aseem Trivedi’s cartoons, display the same contempt for the existing laws and governments. There is little doubt that Anna and Kejriwal successfully exploited the popular anger against corruption. But, their rejection of the existing system has left them open to the charge of anarchy. (IPA Service)