The Times of India dated August 31, 2011 carries a report on how a youth who refused to participate in the anti-corruption stir was chased by the crowed and left to drown in a river in which he had jumped to save himself from being lynched. Here is the news piece.
Assuming that it is true, ruthlessness of those carrying out anti-corruption stirs in support of a 'Gandhian' perhaps evidences that unlike the Gandhian movements, Anna's movement was unable to integrate to the moral behaviours of those following it. There was support from all section of the society; many of whom were also the source of corruption. On the otherside, Gandhiji had spent decades together connecting personally with the masses and therefore his movement was able to motivate the moral side of the people in the real sense.
While it has been acknowledged that the movement had been driven by urban middle class, there is no concurrence on the reason for why the minorities and the rural poor had not engaged in the movement.
Based on the above news article, and the support of right wing forces to Anna's movement (including of the admitted deployment of saffron cadres in the movement), one could deduce that the movement in its approach had been a right winged one, with little or no room for dissent and disagreement. Those who disagreed had to pay. Such an approach to any movement is clearly against the tenets of India's constitution, where freedom of expression allows a person the liberty to or not to participate in public discourse, of any kind.
