Explained: This article explains the political background, key decisions, and possible outcomes related to Explained : How India Against Corruption Ended Up Hurting an Honest Prime Minister and Its Impact and why it matters right now.
On the first death anniversary of Dr. Manmohan Singh, an unsettling political introspection has resurfaced, forcing the country to revisit one of the most consequential movements of recent history.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who stood at the heart of the 2011 India Against Corruption movement, publicly acknowledged that opposing Manmohan Singh was a serious mistake. His admission was not rhetorical or cautious. It was blunt and remorseful. Singh’s integrity, restraint, and faith in institutions, Bhushan said, were misunderstood as weakness. In the process, an honest leader was politically dismantled in the name of moral outrage.
That reflection compels us to re examine 2011 with greater honesty. The movement, symbolically led by Anna Hazare, was projected as spontaneous, citizen driven, and proudly apolitical. It appealed to middle class conscience and moral anxiety. Yet, over the past decade, several uncomfortable details have surfaced that challenge this carefully constructed narrative.
Former participants have alleged that the massive mobilisation at Ramlila Maidan, including logistics and the now iconic “Main Bhi Gandhi” imagery, did not materialise organically. There have been claims of structured support from networks associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In 2023, former IAC member Chandra Mohan stated publicly that the agitation was orchestrated to engineer a powerful anti incumbency wave rather than merely demand accountability.
Former Anna aide and senior Journalist, Raju Parulekar too spoke about RSS involvement in IAC campaign, during my interview with him in 2024.
Equally revealing is what followed. The relentless media amplification of corruption charges peaked dramatically before 2014 and then almost disappeared from mainstream political discourse thereafter. This abrupt silence has led many analysts to argue that corruption was less a sustained moral mission and more a time specific political instrument.
Bhushan has also been openly critical of Arvind Kejriwal, accusing him of allowing personal ambition and an obsession with power to hollow out the movement’s original ethical core.
The tragedy here is not ideological. It is civic. An entire nation was persuaded that quiet competence was failure and institutional dignity was guilt.
As Manmohan Singh is remembered today for stability, reform, and decency, one unavoidable question lingers.
Were we genuinely fighting corruption, or were we carefully mobilised to weaken one power centre so that another could rise unchallenged?
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
