Opinion Conversation,not confrontation

Meanwhile,under pressure from Anna Hazare’s fast unto death,a joint committee comprising the government and others met several times and prepared a Lokpal draft bill despite mutual differences. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha and later,as per tradition,it was forwarded to a standing committee. The standing committee heard Team Anna out,but Anna Hazare requested the committee to quash and recall the bill. The government claimed to have accepted 24 points in full and 10 points in part,out of the 40 points laid down by Team Anna,and these have been reflected in the bill. The government rejected six points. In these circumstances,Anna’s request for quashing and recalling the entire bill does not seem appropriate. He had announced an indefinite fast commencing on August 16 even before the blueprint of the government’s Lokpal bill had been readied. After differences surfaced in the standing committee,it was wrong for dialogue to have ended between Team Anna and the government’s representatives.

It was equally inappropriate for the government to stop the conversation with Team Anna and for Anna Hazare and his supporters to resort to a fast unto death in the event of their demands not being met,word-for-word. Team Anna’s reaction is not compatible with Gandhian ideology. Similarly,it cannot be said to be correct on the government’s part to impose conditions on Anna’s decision to fast and to arrest him later. This is an assault on citizens’ rights. While it was fine for the government to decide the venue of the protest,it was wrong to restrict its duration and the number of protesters. The government should have resorted to arresting Anna only if there was any threat to his life,due to physical stress and deterioration from the fast. Stalling dialogue after Anna announced his fast was,in effect,turning a blind eye to the central issue.

The question of whether or not to bring the prime minister/judiciary under the Lokpal,and the differences over the structure of the bill is a matter for discussion and the best platform for this debate is a parliamentary standing committee alone. Guarding the primacy of Parliament is in the national interest. The standing committee should start the process of getting the people’s verdict on the Lokpal at the earliest.

It has been clear from the beginning that an effective Lokpal is a strong step towards ending corruption. But the power of money and caste in our electoral culture,corruption in anti-poverty schemes and departments,and a lack of transparency — all warrant attention. Financial details of high-ranking officers and rich businessmen across the nation should be recorded like telephone numbers in a directory against their names. With such details,attacking corruption will become easier.

Corruption has its roots in three places: one,where expenditure exceeds income,there will be corruption. Two,where there are two classes — one powerful and capable of asserting its rights,placed in high positions,and another needy and helpless,there will be corruption. Three,where there is nepotism,there will be corruption. Corruption cannot exist without these factors. We need to attack these three prongs of corruption. And for this attack,we need a Lokpal,the right to information,awareness,transparency,disclosure of wealth,an effective judiciary and electoral reform.

(Translated from the Hindi)
The writer is an RJD MP in the Lok Sabha