Opinion Speak for yourselves

Is not the method of using drummed-up public support to intimidate government and Parliament into passing legislation a dangerous precedent for democracy? Will majoritarianism or mob rule henceforth determine public policy?

Team Anna has contemptuously dismissed the proposition that members of Parliament represent the will of the people. As lakhs of people have supported the Jan Lokpal bill,Anna Hazare and his team have decided that the people of India want this legislation,and therefore Parliament must pass it. Extending this logic further,many Indians in Kashmir and the Northeast want secession from the country. Should Parliament accede to their demands also?

It may be recalled that in the 1990s lakhs of people from the same middle-class section of society had swarmed the streets against the Mandal Commission recommendations. Should the then-government have heard the voice of the people and jettisoned the Mandal report?

Anna has said,“It was Gandhiji’s vision that every village should have one chamar,one sunar,one kumahar,and so on. They should all do their work according to their role and occupation,and in this way a village will be self-dependent. This is what we are practising in Ralegan Siddhi.” Does Team Anna uphold the sanctity of the caste system?

Team Anna has contempt for every existing governance structure: the judiciary,the political executive,the bureaucracy. How will the Jan Lokpal,with a bureaucracy of 20,000 vigilance officials along with scores of clerical and administration assistants,ensure that it will function differently? Will the recruits come from outer space?

Team Anna envisages a tyrannical Lokpal that will be investigator,prosecutor and judge. They are against an official being given a showcause notice and evidence against him before he is prosecuted. Does Team Anna feel that the ordinary requirements of justice should be denied to a person against whom there is a complaint?

Will the judicial officers under the Lokpal have such autocratic powers that their recommendations regarding the quantum of punishment should be accepted even by the president,who is the appointing authority of group “A” officers? Is Team Anna aware that if the disciplinary authority is perforce to accept the Lokpal’s recommendation he would be guilty of “non-application of mind”? Such a system would lead to unending litigation.

How does Anna’s team explain the fact that the Delhi Metro,with a staff of over 7,000,has delivered a world-class metro with only five vigilance officials on its rolls? Does Team Anna accept that the top management in every organisation is essentially the key to ensuring a clean administration and not an overpowering anti-corruption agency?

Given the federal nature of our polity and the opposition of some chief ministers to the Lokayukta,is it reasonable to expect the Central government to force the states to accept the institution of the Lokayukta,as demanded by Anna’s team? Also,Team Anna wants the Lokpal to be armed with powers to tap telephones,the Internet,etc. Does the team not realise that such a draconian clause would be a breach of all privacy?

Finally,is it not ironic that once the Lokpal is set up as conceived by Team Anna,and then things get worse as is likely,there is no accountability attached to the authors? Will they then agitate for a law to dismantle the Lokpal?

I wish to share what a wise old man once said: “In our country we make outstanding laws and statutes and think we have solved the problem. In the event,our statute books will go to heaven but we will have to look for accommodation elsewhere.”

The writer,a former civil servant,is secretary-general of the Lok Janshakti Party,express@expressindia.com