Anna Hazare says... way too much!

Annaji is a good man, but increasingly a man of far too many words. Over the past two weeks – and in the midst of a self-imposed vow of silence – he has been incessantly speaking out about Kashmir, his colleagues, Hisar and most recently Pakistan. This motormouth incarnation is all the more puzzling given the many months that Anna spent in relative silence – particularly so, in his finest hour when he was up on that stage in front of adoring crowds. The great allure of Hazare was his ability to remain a benevolent cipher to his supporters: a kindly old man of integrity who inspired instinctive affection and respect. His lines were carefully scripted and rationed out by the team. At the time, many of his fans grumbled about his cohorts who did all the talking, leaving Hazare to the task of starving for the cameras. “He has a mind of his own,” averred Hazare supporters, resentful of reports that Anna was no more than a PR-friendly face of a campaign stage-managed by the likes of Kejriwal and Bhushan. And many of them wanted Anna to step forward and “take charge.” [caption id=“attachment_115847” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Anna Hazare, now, a man of far too many words. AFP”] [/caption] So he has, by speaking that once somewhat mysterious mind. Between media interviews and his own blog, barely a day passes by without an Anna quote making the rounds. Whether he’s constantly shifting his position on Prashant Bhushan, offering unsolicited proof of his patriotism, or denying his quotes and deleting his blog posts, the results have been less than stellar. The impression he now conveys is not of a man in charge, but one out of step with the demands of modern-day leadership – at the national level, and perhaps even in his own village. In present-day politics, good intentions are rarely enough. Taming the media beast Much as Hazare supporters deny it, the voracious 24X7 news cycle made Anna a bona fide hero, and decisively transformed the protests into a national cause celebre. Without the omnipresent TV cameras, he would have met the same fate as Irom Sharmila. That the anti-corruption leadership was able to corral all that media power without speaking a word awry is a credit to their political skills. In the era of media-driven politics, leaders thrive or perish by the word. A badly timed or worded quote can do incalculable damage. Al Gore, for example, will forever be mocked as the self-described inventor of the internet. Social media merely amplifies the challenge. Just ask Shashi Tharoor who was crucified for that infamous “cattle class” tweet. But ever since Anna returned to Ralegan, he seems to have forgotten the lessons of Ram Lila. His first mistake: creating a personal blog that may well prove to be his undoing; Anna Hazare says way too much these days. Speaking directly to the people – and with a mere click of a button – is seductive and dangerous. Anna seems to have succumbed to its allure, posting his every passing thought — with the likely encouragement from his local coterie who are just as untutored in the modern art of political communication. It’s the only possible explanation for his over-the-top, often unprovoked statements. When Anna rambles on  about being “ready to take part in war against Pakistan,” he sounds incoherent not heroic. What may still sound charmingly naïve and unrehearsed today will soon start to read as just plain foolish tomorrow. And this verbal meandering dilutes the impact of his statements when they’re needed most – as when speaking out in support of Kiran Bedi. The charges against her would have been far less damaging if they didn’t come on the heels of two weeks of PR disarray created by… what else, talking too much. Modern leadership is all about learning to ride the media tiger without meeting the same fate as  that young lady from Niger . Like it or not, our perception of politics is shaped by what people say. Words carry as much weight as actions. When a party’s spokespersons are arrogant, blustering, and out-of-touch, so is its leadership. Conversely, if Anna appears confused, erratic, and directionless, so is the movement he leads. The bottomline: loose lips sink political ships. Politics of persuasion The dramatic transformation of Ralegan Siddhi is perhaps the most impressive achievement on Anna’s political resume. But he achieved this modern-day miracle by forging a feudal style of authority. When he returned from the army, he was embraced by an impoverished village desperate for saviour. He was without doubt, the best man for the job: honest, dedicated and indomitable. Over the decades, Anna came to rule Ralegan by diktat. There were no elections, and Anna unilaterally decided who would be sarpanch and part of the executive body for the gram sabha. And the villagers abided by his rules, be it the prohibition on liquor or on cutting trees. Anna’s Ralegan experience explains why he is now bristling at the need to defer to his team’s collective judgement; why he is increasingly prone to issuing unilateral decisions on, say, Prashant Bhushan’s membership; why he set up the blog to distance himself from his own team, because “people (even those who are closer to me) make statements that do not collaborate with my thinking.” This is a man who is used to speaking freely and without restraint – and assumes absolute deference from his audience. But Ralegan is not India. In fact, Ralegan is no longer Ralegan. In 2000, Anna’s SC/ST nominee for sarpanch was challenged by a Dalit cobbler who went on to win the village’s first real elections. The current sarpanch, Jaisingh Mapari, a staunch National Congress Party worker, also defied Anna’s wishes and contested the 2010 elections. Anna is still greatly respected but his authority is no longer unquestioned in a village that is outgrowing its feudal past. As The Telegraph reports :

While Ralegan Siddhi holds Anna as a virtual deity, many among the younger generation here feel it’s time they began to come out of his shadow. It isn’t that the villagers don’t respect him, Pote says, but some of them feel it is detrimental in the long run that one man decides what is good or bad for them. The days of he-says-we-follow are over, Pote claims.

We now live in the era of politics by persuasion. Words, therefore, become all the more important when authority has to be earned not assumed. Anna can no longer speak at will and without consequences. If he cares truly about fighting corruption, he must learn to weigh his words and speak with others in one voice – however unfamiliar and unwelcome it may seem. Otherwise, the man with the iron will to give up sustenance will find himself in humiliating position of having to continually eat his words. And that does no good to either him or his cause.