T Thomas: Hunger strike or blackmail?

Now that Anna Hazare’s hunger strike has persuaded the government to reconsider its policy on the Lok Pal Bill, it is timely and relevant to examine the use of hunger strike as a tool for persuasion. Whenever there is a dispute between two parties (for instance, between an employer and employee or a producer and consumer) the first stage of trying to resolve the issue is through an oral representation or a discussion. The next step will be a written representation that may lead to a discussion and possible resolution of the issue. If that does not succeed, the parties can go to a government-appointed regulatory body (for example, the labour commissioner). If that also fails the aggrieved party can go to the court of law, pursuing it through the several layers of court — small causes court, high court and the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, the trade union can instigate go-slow tactics at the workplace, which can put pressure on the employer. If that does not yield results, they can go on strike although it would mean loss of wages, which many employees cannot afford. Usually during this possible sequence of developments, the two parties find an acceptable solution.

It is only in exceptional cases that there is a prolonged breakdown and stoppage of work. Hunger strike is not part of this normal dispute-resolution procedure. It is a form of blackmail by those who adopt this method. Gandhiji used hunger strike as part of his agitational-kit. It certainly drew attention and created awareness among the public about the cause being espoused. But it was not because of his hunger strikes that the British gave India independence. It was essentially due to a change of circumstances and of government in Britain. An impoverished Britain found it too difficult to rule a large and distant country like India beset by agitation for independence, American persuasion also played a part. Simultaneously, the post-war election brought the British Labour Party in power. Their party had more liberal views about colonies and wanted to give them independence. If the Conservatives, led by Winston Churchill, had come to power the course of history of Indian independence would have been probably very different because Churchill was an outright imperialist who had proclaimed earlier that he was not elected prime minister of Britain to preside over the liquidation of its empire. Some unexpected and unplanned events occasionally change the course of history. The coming to power of the Labour Party in Britain after the war is an example of this.

Another example of such an unexpected event that had a decisive influence on the course of World War II, Hitler’s move to attack the USSR. There was no strategic reason for him to do so. It was his own megalomania. It will be interesting to speculate what would have happened if Hitler had not attacked the USSR. The Western Allies had no love for Russia, which they saw as a communist threat. The Americans were most allergic to anything to do with communism. So if Hitler had not attacked the USSR, the Allies would have maintained their aversion to the USSR and left it alone. Hitler’s unwise decision to attack Russia had two very negative consequences: (a) It provoked the Allies led by Americans to consider the implication of such a large country like Russia with its vast natural- and mineral-resources falling into Hitler’s hands and (b) It overextended Hitler’s own military capability that faced the same problems as Napoleon had faced in his expedition into Russia — a hostile nature of severe winter and a long supply lines to be sustained through hostile territories.

With regard to corruption, one has to identify the root causes of corruption and find remedies for them. There are two basic reasons why corruption exists in government. The first reason is the inadequate level of salaries paid to government functionaries. The second reason is the level of discretionary powers vested in them. The remedy for the first cause is to make the remuneration of government officials sufficiently high, so that they are not tempted to accept any unlawful payments. My own experience in private-sector employment is that apart from one’s own personal morals, once you have a fairly generous income you are not tempted to degrade yourself by feeling obliged to a person who has succeeded in bribing you. The overall cost to the country by paying higher salaries to government officials will not increase and may even decrease because with more efficient and decisive officials, the bureaucracy can be trimmed down in all ministries.

With regard to the second cause, that is discretionary powers vested in officialdom, this can be moderated by abolishing or reducing the rules and regulations applicable to economic activity. The abolition of industrial licensing and price controls, among other measures are worthy examples of this procedure, which is considered part of liberalisation.

Therefore, if we want to minimise or even eliminate corruption we must ensure that government officials are well-paid and that their discretionary powers are not as pervasive. Hunger strikes will not solve the problem of corruption. They can only blackmail the government to appoint another commission of enquiry.