Should we cooperate or non-cooperate ?

Cooperation and non-cooperation are like two sides of the same coin, both are needed but only in the right contexts. The non-cooperation movement during 1920-22 led by Gandhi had not only played a significant role in Indian freedom struggle but also laid down some important principles for functioning of a democracy. In his June 22^nd 1920 letter to the Viceroy, Gandhi had asserted the right recognised ‘from time immemorial of the subject to refuse to assist a ruler who misrules’.

The words ‘subject’, ‘assist’ and ‘misrule’ in this sentence need to be marked. Their meanings and interpretations in independent India are blurred. Firstly, we are not subjects anymore yet we need to answer the question as to whether we are citizens in the true sense. Secondly, in a democracy, we ourselves are responsible to choose our representatives (not rulers). Thus we no longer have to assist them but we cooperate. Thirdly, we do not have a consensus on what is misrule. What was misrule yesterday is taken to be genuine today.

A true democracy would give its citizens their due rights and entitlements and in turn, a true citizen would cooperate with the government in right doings and non-cooperate in the wrong ones. This would keep the misrule in check. Achieving this is not as simple as it sounds. It is an intricate web of cooperation and non-cooperation between the government and citizens, within government, within citizens etc.

Across these varied nexuses, abetting has become the norm and any kind of non-cooperation is strangled. Every effort is made to punish those who do not cooperate. First, the “rights” are given to people freely through legislation and then they are to be “bought” with bribe. There is a whole chain of cooperation starting from the beneficiary at the bottom to the highest official. The internal chain of co-operators also has external political, business links, which further complicate the web of nexuses.

At the slightest hint of non-cooperation, the entire web turns against as we have seen in the case of D.K.Ravi, Karnataka bureaucrat recently. In 2012, a 30-year-old IPS officer Narendra Kumar was crushed to death in MP for fighting the stone mining mafia. Another dedicated officer Satyendra Dubey was shot dead for exposing financial irregularities in golden quadrilateral project. These are only a few instances. Frequent transfers, political interventions are other tactics used to punish the ones who hinder the business as usual.

Non-cooperation not only in bureaucracy but outside of it too is treated equally brutally. Here again the organised cooperation among multiple stakeholders work against those who do not cooperate. RTI activists, who have been striving to make the system transparent and accountable, were either killed or ostracised. Recently, women’s rights activist Sunita Krishnan’s car was attacked after she uploaded rape videos to shame the rapists. Irom Sharmila’s, is another classic case, who is charged with an attempt to commit suicide for her non-cooperation through a 14 year long hunger strike.

So, it seems as a society we are failing to protect the honest and upright who raise their voice against wrong doings. On the other hand, we are getting more and more comfortable in cooperating where we should not be. Because of the complexities of the myriad rules and regulations, huge delays in the system, for all practical purposes we cooperate with bribe takers, the corrupt and the middle men. In getting a driving license or a passport or a train reservation there is more incentive to cooperate with the wrong to get things done.

As Gandhi said, it becomes our right to refuse the misrule but atleast in the short run, it goes against the one who refuses. The larger worry is that the society is slowly embracing and preferring to encourage the wrong than to non-cooperate with them. For instance, one of the reasons for prevailing of vote buying during elections, is ‘vote selling’. A voter is willing to take money and sell his vote away. I am not totally blaming the voter.  For him, may be it is better to accept whatever he gets now, as he is not sure what he would get after elections. But there are a section of voters who are opportunistic and so cooperate with the corrupt.

Both cooperation and non-cooperation are continuous processes, the former gives immediate returns and the latter long term ones. Encouraging the wrong once started, becomes a habit and gets imbibed in the culture, and makes it difficult to change the course later. Non-cooperation is a continuous struggle, at every level. It is so difficult that even someone of Gandhi’s stature was able to do it on a mass scale only once. Yet at individual level he never cooperated with what he truly believed to be wrong. The moments of mass actions do come, but come very rarely, at an appropriate time when things are conducive. Yet we should not underestimate the power of a few, who stand against the huge tide of organised and unwanted cooperation. As Margaret Mead said “Never believe that a few caring people can’t change the world. For indeed that’s all who ever have”.