The Chai Party Movement

Thousands of citizens gather at a rally to invoke religious beliefs, sing the national anthem, and decry a government they mistrust. No, this is not the Tea Party circa the 2010 midterm elections season. It is New Delhi in summer 2011, and the drink of choice is not tea, but chai.

Indeed, in the past year, these two very different democracies have given birth to eerily similar movements. In the United States, the Tea Party’s mission, according to leader Mark Meckler, is to “attract, educate, organize, and mobilize” citizens to restore “fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government.” It is to minimize the size and scope of government.

In India, this summer has seen the rise of a grassroots anti-corruption movement, striving for the implementation of a Jan Lokpal, or “citizens’ ombudsman” committee, to investigate government corruption and excessive bureaucracy. Both factions rely on grassroots populism and radical rhetoric. Extreme Tea Partyists have compared President Obama to Hitler, while Indian leader Anna Hazare has demanded the death penalty, as the maximum punishment, for corrupt politicians. Tea Party ideologists hearken back to the so-called “glory days” of the American Revolution, comparing themselves to colonists and idolizing the Constitution. Likewise, Indian anti-corruption supporters frame their cause as an echo of their nation’s 20th century fight for independence from British rule, utilizing hunger strikes as a form of peaceful protest and donning white hats called the “Gandhi topi” in allusion to India’s foremost revolutionary.

These movements are alike not only in philosophy, but in terms of the people who champion them. Mainstream politicians spearhead neither political faction. India’s answer to Tea Party leaders like Rick Perry (who organized an evangelist prayer rally to “halt America’s national decline” last month) and Michelle Bachmann (a self-described Constitutional purist) are Baba Ramdev, a spiritual figurehead, and Anna Hazare, a 74-year-old military veteran and social activist. More importantly, the devotees of both so-called grassroots movements are citizens who perceive and portray themselves as ordinary and disenfranchised, be they rural, blue collar Americans or urban, middle class Indians.

There is no doubt that these movements have much in common, but less clear are the long-term consequences of radical reformism in each country. Indian Express columnist Dilip Bobb opines that in the South Asian anti-corruption movement, “there is a hidden danger: a challenge to the established instruments and norms of parliamentary democracy.” However, in India, parliamentary democracy does not function all that efficiently to begin with. In the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index, which scores countries from zero to 10, zero being the most corrupt and 10 the least, India scored a 3.3 , tying with the smaller, slower growing economies of Jamaica and Liberia. Bribing your way into a legislative seat remains the common form of election in rural India. Last year, the nation generated nearly $700 billion in tax revenue, but the federal government only plans to invest $100 billion annually in building much-needed infrastructure over the next five years. Anna Hazare’s supporters will concur that corruption is, indeed, the norm in Indian government. As such, the Lokpal bill and its advocates run little danger of trying to fix a system that isn’t broken. Should the movement’s devotees continue to focus on the singular, specific goal of decreasing corruption and see through the effective implementation of their proposed federal watchdog committee, the results could be beneficial for India, whose government needs to catch up with its economically empowered and intellectually sincere population.

For America, on the other hand, the Tea Party’s revolutionary rhetoric is proving far more detrimental, as evidenced by a worsening economy under the stalemate of a Democratic president versus unyielding Tea Party influence in the House. Despite the Tea Party’s wolf cries of dysfunctional government, American government is relatively less corrupt than that of India or most developing countries. Moreover, the United States is a developed nation. Its most pressing conflict is not government corruption, but the more complicated challenge of facing economic instability, even as it retains its position as the world’s largest economy. As proven by this summer’s Congressional debt ceiling agreement that sent the global stock market into turbulence, the U.S. government and economy are interdependent. Therefore, at this time of economic instability, American politicians would do well to find solutions within the system, not rebuild it.

Despite their varying consequences, the movements signal parallel, populist shifts in the political climates of the two nations. Indians and Americans are kicking and screaming their way into government policymaking, and framing their cause as a battle to force the government to better serve its citizens. These grassroots advocates perceive the current system of governance as an enemy, and although this sentiment is divisive, it may open the door for important government reform in both countries. For better or worse, the unstoppable force of democracy is at work. Power to the people—until they become no good, corrupt, inhuman politicians, anyway.

Tarina Quraishi ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Eliot House.