Agrawal's death and Akbar's resignation: Modi govt's selective morality

Akbar had to go because the #MeToo movement began to have wide resonance, but big political ideas like Hazare's Lok Pal demand or Agrawal's plea to protect the Ganga were electorally unimportant

The Narendra Modi government was unperturbed by the fast unto death by Swami Gyanswaroop Sanand aka Prof G D Agrawal, who was pressing for action to restore the uninterrupted flow of the Ganga. The prime minister merely acknowledged his death with a condolence tweet remembering his passion for saving the Ganga.

Anna Hazare also sat on a protest fast in Delhi, in March this year, demanding electoral reforms and the appointment of a Lok Pal, issues that had once brought the Manmohan Singh government to heel. His half a dozen letters to this PM went unanswered and he slunk back to Maharashtra after a mere seven days.

Consider one more protest on issues of moral governance. Following the suicide of 65 farmers after the worst drought in 140 years, Tamil Nadu farmers protested in Delhi. Most of their demands were in the Centre’s domain – waiver of loans from nationalised banks, setting up of a Cauvery Management Board to prevent drought in downstream Tamil Nadu, a relief package of Rs 400 billion for Tamil Nadu, etc.

The Modi government ignored their extreme portrayals of desperation and their equally desperate modes of protest — displaying the skulls of kin who had died in the drought to drinking urine and eating straw and excreta.

So then why did the government come out of its insulation chamber to acknowledge protests around the #MeToo movement? The movement against sexual harassment in the workplace had Minister of State for External Affairs, M J Akbar in its crosshairs. Initially, the prime minister maintained a studious silence. The Organiser, the official mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, derided the movement as marginal — a small urban liberal elite aping the West.

The government reacted after 10 days of public outrage with daily revelations about the predatory behaviour of the minister against women journalists in his capacity as a newspaper editor. Though he retains his seat in the Rajya Sabha, the minister was forced to resign. Why did the prime minister finally give in? If the sacking of Akbar has restored the government to high moral ground what about the immorality of ignoring Agrawal’s self-sacrifice to protect the Ganga?

G D Agrawal aka Swami Sanand was no run-of-the-mill, ochre-robed sadhu. An environmental engineer with a PhD from University of California at Berkeley, he was a professor and head of the Environmental Engineering Department of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. He was also the first member-secretary of the Central Pollution Control Board.

A Gandhian to boot, Agrawal knew the value of individual protests in changing public policy. His first fast in 2008 to save the pristine stretch of the Ganga near Gangotri led to a ban on dams between Gangotri and Maneri and forced recognition of ensuring minimum environmental flows in the river. It led to the Ganga being designated as India’s National River. The creation of the National Ganga River Basin Authority was the direct consequence of his second fast in 2009. His third fast in 2010 led to creation of the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone and the cancellation of all hydroelectric projects between Gangotri and Uttarkashi. During his fast under the Manmohan Singh regime, the then Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, had met him and had subsequently stopped the Lohari Nagpala hydroelectric project he had raised objections against.

Agrawal’s life showed that political change could often be the direct outcome of a citizen’s protest and activism. He expected the Modi government to be sensitive to his campaign as Modi had supported his fast earlier during the Manmohan Singh government. Then as ‘Candidate Modi’ he had claimed he was heeding “Ma Ganga’s” call to contest from Varanasi.  

With high expectations, Agrawal wrote to him in February this year, urging him to bring a Bill in Parliament to stop all hydro-electric projects under construction in the higher reaches of the Ganga and its tributaries; ban river-bed sand mining, and create an autonomous body to ensure the well-being of the Ganga. With no response from the PM, he went on a hunger strike from June 22. The government ignored him and he died on the 112th day. A day before his death, a statement was issued by the minister for River Cleaning and Ganga Rejuvenation, Nitin Gadkari, that most of Swami Sanand’s demands had been met. These claims were false, according to his followers.

It seems that all that the Narendra Modi government cares about is the impact of protests on voting behaviour.

Akbar’s resignation was not forced by concerns of morality. He was made to resign because the government realised that the #MeToo movement had begun to have much wider resonance than expected. The same social media which was a powerful instrument of electoral campaigning for Modi was fuelling public anger against his government across the country. The protest of urban middle-class professional women in national metros about toxic work environments had spread to women in smaller towns with aspirations to entering professional careers.

The Modi government has significantly positioned itself as a champion of women. Its programmes for building toilets in rural India, the Ujjwala subsidised LPG scheme for poor women and the banning of instant triple talaq among Muslims are about making life more secure for women. Its slogan “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (Save your daughter, educate your daughter)” inspires parents to encourage their daughters to enter the skilled labour market. But what if the workplaces they aspire to are ruled by sexual predators? The perception that the Modi government tolerates such behaviour at the workplace could change the vote beyond metropolitan India.

On the other hand, big political ideas like Anna Hazare’s demand for a Lok Pal or Agrawal’s plea to protect and revive the Ganga were electorally unimportant. The Tamil Nadu farmers’ fate was sealed because the ruling party at the Centre does not have the smallest hope of winning a single Parliamentary seat in that state. The Modi government’s actions are never about upholding political morality but only about electoral calculations.

The writer is a journalist based in Delhi. He tweets @bharatitis