💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › monobina-gupta-in-defence-of-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:42:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: In defence of anarchism
Author: Monobina Gupta
Date: August 16, 2013
Language: en
Topics: India
Source: Retrieved on 9th July 2021 from https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-in-defence-of-anarchism-1875146

Monobina Gupta

In defence of anarchism

It is foolish to expect our parliamentarians to be acquainted with the

radical philosophy of anarchism. Controversial yes, but anarchism — many

would argue — is not a philosophy to be dismissed easily. Over the

decades, anarchism has evolved into exhilarating, if sometimes reckless,

political thought. Equally reviled by Marxists and Rightists, the

philosophy has existed on the margins; though many a revolutionary has

succumbed to its irresistible charms.

Undoubtedly “anarchism” is not a word to be bandied about loosely, and

least of all, defined by the mindless unruliness of the theatrics played

out in parliament these days. A tool of resistance, anarchism runs deep

in society, its proponents advocating stateless societies based on

non-hierarchical free associations. Anti-statism is at the heart of the

anarchist philosophy as is resistance to authority even in the conduct

of human relations.

So what’s the present Rajya Sabha row all about? Exasperated with the

shouting MPs, Rajya Sabha chairperson Hamid Ansari recently hit them

where it seems to hurt most: “Every single day, rules and etiquettes are

being violated. If we want the House to become a federation of

anarchists, then it is a different matter.” It can be unequivocally said

that stalling discussions with nothing but petty brinkmanship as its

motivation, is not what anarchism is about.

However, judging from the bullish objections of the Upper House members

at being tagged as ‘anarchists’, it seems most of them are conflating

that term with ordinary lawlessness (the kind they are actually guilty

of), without its philosophical underpinnings.

If Ansari’s remark was intended at preventing ‘anarchism’ in the house,

it only stoked some more ‘anarchy’. The din continued, the MPs now

demanding that the term ‘anarchists’ be expunged from the house records.

No doubt, Ansari has done the original anarchists a great disservice by

clubbing his unruly flock with them.

Surely anarchists deserve better than that. Eminent anthropologist and

political theorist James C Scott in his latest book Two Cheers for an

Anarchism writes: “Acts of disobedience are of interest to us when they

are exemplary, and especially when, as examples they set off a chain

reaction, prompting others to emulate them.” Scott further adds, “Then

we are in the presence less of an act of cowardice and conscience —

perhaps both — than of a social phenomenon that can have massive

political effects.”

Every act of wanton unruliness, therefore, does not correspond to a

transformative act of anarchy. Our careless use of the term — pinning

the label “anarchist” on all and sundry violators of law (propelled by

the arrogance of their power rather than any motivation for radical

change) directly contradicts Scott’s thesis.

Consider some of the spontaneous movements dubbed as ‘anarchic’, which

have shifted the course of history. When the Anna Hazare-led

anti-corruption movement hit the streets of the National Capital,

political pundits predicted the onset of anarchy. As they intoned when

protesters were water cannoned and thrashed at the barricades of India

Gate following the December 16 gang-rape. Arvind Kejriwal and his

followers are frequently dismissed as anarchists seeking to subvert the

parliamentary system. Were any of these movements anarchic? Even if so,

does that in any way diminish their worth?

James Scott argues that the 1960s civil disobedience movement, creating

a massive disruption in public order, achieved what years of peaceful

organising and lobbying couldn’t. Prone to institutionalising

spontaneous movements, politicians may perceive anarchy in such

restlessness. But, as Scott argues, anarchism “involves a defense of

politics, conflict, and debate, and the perpetual uncertainty and

learning they entail.”

Anarchic or not, moments of public unrest have refashioned history time

and again, more than our MPs’ silly, cavalier disruptions. Our MPs

perhaps need to imbibe a bit of that spirit of anarchism to move out of

their present rut.