1. No one wants to die for the nation.
If someone says s/he is willing to die for the nation, it is to be assumed that s/he won't. That's barring a few notable aberrations like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar, Rajguru, Sukhdeo, et al. So when someone takes to Fast Unto Death, rest assured - No one's dying. And that's true, not only about Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal but also about Gandhi. The demands would typically be vague enough so that before it comes to dying, one can back out of the fast.
2. You need to know when to use this weapon and when not to.
The greatest champ of this weapon, Gandhi knew this well. He understood that he would be able to bring the British to their knees by going on fast - because though they enslaved the nation, by and large, they were relatively humane. Yet another time, Gandhi had gone on fast was in Noakhali when the hindus had decided to avenge the killings in Bengal an year ago. They were out for the blood of Shaheed Suhrawardy. Again, Gandhi knew that the hindus would relent to the pressure of his fast. And they did. It may be noted that when Muhammed Ali Jinnah was hell-bent upon partitioning India, Gandhi had famously said, "Partition only on my dead body". This had provided a false assurance to many Indians across both sides of the border that eventually came up, that Gandhi is going to fast and Jinnah will then give up his demand. However, Gandhi knew that there is no way Jinnah can be convinced and he might have to die if he were to go on fast unto death. So there was no fast. A partition happened and it did not happen on Gandhi's dead body. Anna's fast an year ago was a success because Congress was caught unaware of the will-power of those behind Anna movement. It did not succeed this time because Congress was in better position to read the bluff behind their fast.
3. Keep it vague.
The demands at such a fast need to be kept vague. So that you can express satisfaction at the end of 10 days of fast and break your fast even if technically speaking no demands have been met. That's how negotiations end. You may have the opponent down on his knees and meet all your demands or the opponent may not meet any of them but allow you to back out gracefully, or anything in between the two possibilities. That happened in Anna's first sally, one year ago. The fast had almost brought Congress on its knees but then Anna's condition had worsened to the extent that they could not carry on any longer without losing Anna's life. So the two sides agreed to something that appeared to be a good win-win solution (but in hindsight it can be said that Congress pulled it off).
4. Back-out should be well-planned
No one knows why Arvind Kejriwal's fast at Jantar Mantar really ended. It was embarrassing to the movement and its followers (which by the way, has shrunk quite sharply and that's quite worrying). It appears that all the above lessons were forgotten. Congress knew the bluff about willingness to die for the nation, Kejriwal probably did not know that it was not a wise idea to repeat the use of this weapon because a. Congress will not agree to your demand and b. The public support has come down to a new ebb (thanks so some deft media-management by their opponents and some self-goals by Team Anna) and the demands made by Team Anna were not vague enough to make a good back-out from the fast. What came out was a hurried and a very embarrassing end to the 6-day fast with nothing to show in terms of achievement. Their opponents gave them a cold shrug!
Clearly, the nation needs a strong fight against corruption and its perpetrators. I am all for Team Anna movement. But the movement needs to be backed by a good strategy in place. Anti-Corruption is too important a war to be lost, the way it seems to have.
If someone says s/he is willing to die for the nation, it is to be assumed that s/he won't. That's barring a few notable aberrations like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar, Rajguru, Sukhdeo, et al. So when someone takes to Fast Unto Death, rest assured - No one's dying. And that's true, not only about Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal but also about Gandhi. The demands would typically be vague enough so that before it comes to dying, one can back out of the fast.
2. You need to know when to use this weapon and when not to.
The greatest champ of this weapon, Gandhi knew this well. He understood that he would be able to bring the British to their knees by going on fast - because though they enslaved the nation, by and large, they were relatively humane. Yet another time, Gandhi had gone on fast was in Noakhali when the hindus had decided to avenge the killings in Bengal an year ago. They were out for the blood of Shaheed Suhrawardy. Again, Gandhi knew that the hindus would relent to the pressure of his fast. And they did. It may be noted that when Muhammed Ali Jinnah was hell-bent upon partitioning India, Gandhi had famously said, "Partition only on my dead body". This had provided a false assurance to many Indians across both sides of the border that eventually came up, that Gandhi is going to fast and Jinnah will then give up his demand. However, Gandhi knew that there is no way Jinnah can be convinced and he might have to die if he were to go on fast unto death. So there was no fast. A partition happened and it did not happen on Gandhi's dead body. Anna's fast an year ago was a success because Congress was caught unaware of the will-power of those behind Anna movement. It did not succeed this time because Congress was in better position to read the bluff behind their fast.
3. Keep it vague.
The demands at such a fast need to be kept vague. So that you can express satisfaction at the end of 10 days of fast and break your fast even if technically speaking no demands have been met. That's how negotiations end. You may have the opponent down on his knees and meet all your demands or the opponent may not meet any of them but allow you to back out gracefully, or anything in between the two possibilities. That happened in Anna's first sally, one year ago. The fast had almost brought Congress on its knees but then Anna's condition had worsened to the extent that they could not carry on any longer without losing Anna's life. So the two sides agreed to something that appeared to be a good win-win solution (but in hindsight it can be said that Congress pulled it off).
4. Back-out should be well-planned
No one knows why Arvind Kejriwal's fast at Jantar Mantar really ended. It was embarrassing to the movement and its followers (which by the way, has shrunk quite sharply and that's quite worrying). It appears that all the above lessons were forgotten. Congress knew the bluff about willingness to die for the nation, Kejriwal probably did not know that it was not a wise idea to repeat the use of this weapon because a. Congress will not agree to your demand and b. The public support has come down to a new ebb (thanks so some deft media-management by their opponents and some self-goals by Team Anna) and the demands made by Team Anna were not vague enough to make a good back-out from the fast. What came out was a hurried and a very embarrassing end to the 6-day fast with nothing to show in terms of achievement. Their opponents gave them a cold shrug!
Clearly, the nation needs a strong fight against corruption and its perpetrators. I am all for Team Anna movement. But the movement needs to be backed by a good strategy in place. Anti-Corruption is too important a war to be lost, the way it seems to have.
