Public pains and private gains

WHEN one man Anna Hazare vows to go on fast, the Indian government gets nervous. But think of the irony when it comes to us. Millions have been fasting for an entire month, yet not a stir in our political bones. That is the difference between religion and politics. What works for the soil doesn't always work for the soul.
English novelist Mary Anne, famously known by her penname George Eliot, once said that no man could be wise on an empty stomach. Roughly six decades after her death a wise man on an empty stomach proved to be a deadly proposition. Mahatma Gandhi toppled an empire lying hungry in bed.
Fasting as deliberate denial of food was an exclusive preserve of religion. It was Gandhi who took it out of sacral limits and secularised it in 1914. Practiced for penance or piety for centuries, it was transformed into a potent weapon of political protest by the Indian man in loincloth.
Anna Hazare is using that same weapon some sixty odd years later. He is using it against a national government, but the amazing thing is not that he does. The amazing thing rather is that it still works. In his time Anna has already toppled a few fat cat ministers and political heavyweights. He expects it to work for him again. In the first seven days of his fresh round of fasting the 74-year-old man lost five kilograms.
Whether his weight loss will have concomitant influence on the Indian government is a different context. But his cause has already struck a chord with the people. More than 1.2 million Indians have joined him in his demand for a strong Lok Pal bill to fight the surging tide of corruption.
But how does it work? How does one man's decision to deprive his body uplift the souls of millions? What is the connection? How does one man's metabolic adventure turn into a national rapture? Why should one man's hunger awaken the anger in a vast multitude of his countrymen?
And, if fasting should have any magic in it then Anna couldn't be the only person starving in India. When 37% of 1.21 billion people live below the poverty line, the country has got to have scores of others who are going to bed hungry. India by now should have been hit by a tsunami of political unrest.
That leads us to a slew of other questions. What is it that worked for Gandhi? What is it that is working for Anna? And, what is it that does not work for other people starving all over the world?
Perhaps to some extent it has to do with one's place in life. Those who can afford to fast have the means to push a deal. Starvation, on the contrary, is doomed from the start. People who have difficulties scraping three square meals cannot even think of going on fast.
Freeze the frame right here, because the picture is crystal clear. If millions can afford to fast in this country, it is good news for us. It means millions of people do not have to worry about starvation. They have the liberty to realign their mealtimes, not to speak of religious conviction.
It brings us face to face with a difficult contradiction, because that liberty doesn't produce an iota of political consideration. As this holy month draws near, it also has been a politically busy month for us. The anniversaries of the tragedies of August 15th and the atrocities of August 21st fell in this month. The indignations over the deaths of two prominent citizens have roiled the country.
There also have been clamours against the pitiful conditions of our roads. The parliament members have demanded resignations of ministers of their own government. Prices of essential commodities, police brutality, and traffic congestion are foregone conclusions.
Albert Einstein once said that an empty stomach isn't a good political advisor. Gandhi and Hazare proved him wrong by putting a twist on public imagination. In their fasts they conjured up the most graphic expression of a leader's willingness to suffer for people.
That underscores the difference between religion and politics. Starvation is painful no doubt. In both cases it is done in the name of God. But each of us suffers that pain for himself. Gandhi and Anna suffered for people.
Last time a politician fasted for people in this country was Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani. In 1973, he went on a hunger strike, protesting against food crisis, price escalations, and deteriorating law and order situation.
As we bid farewell to another Ramadan month 38 years later, the contrast is obvious. Our public pains are the same or worse. Our private gains have got better. Why should anybody quit when the going is so good?
The writer is Editor, First News, and a columnist of The Daily Star.
Email: [email protected]