‘The largeness of structure in the Jan Lokpal by itself becomes an issue of corruption’

Well,actually,the fight against corruption has never left the social-political scene in this country. We have been fighting corruption in this country—small and big—forever as far as I can remember. When I was in the IAS,when I left the IAS,when I went to an NGO,then when I went to a movement,it has always been an issue. It is extremely interesting and relevant to this country.

You were in the IAS in a very illustrious batch. Many of you have become famous since—you,Wajahat Habibullah,who became the first RTI commissioner,Gopal Gandhi…

Yes. He is also a batchmate. The issue that interests me now is,we have come together and it is a great coming together. The angst has found a kind of expression,but while we say that we don’t want corruption—we are all united because it is something none of us wants—the whole issue is the remedy. For Anna saab Hazare to become a point at which we all congregate to express our angst against corruption is a wonderful thing. But how do we see the process of ending corruption is where the debate begins.

Is a debate possible in this environment?

I think the debate should be possible in any environment,and I really go back to Mahatma Gandhi and to a much more tumultuous period which they all lived through,in which there was a foreign government. And even at that time,there was a debate and documents were published which we read now in the archives. Debate,I think,is essential,in political issues.

One of the most fascinating debates I have read is on the Constituent Assembly. You read that and it makes you wonder what a smart group of people we had and how libertarian and how prescient they were and how much they disagreed with each other.

Actually,they disagreed a lot. But,everything was recorded and done within the ambit of a very mature recognition of dissent. Because if I have the right to dissent,I have the obligation to listen. Unfortunately,in some of our public debates on the Lokpal Bill and also on corruption,we say we have the right to dissent but we don’t have the obligation to listen. Whether it is the government which doesn’t want to listen or a campaign which doesn’t want to listen or any of us who don’t want to listen. I think an important part of growth is the listening. I always think of Mahatma Gandhi. He travelled the length and breadth of India just to listen to people,to fashion a political discourse.

Has Anna Hazare done that,since there is a comparison with Gandhi made all the time?

Most of the discourse has been not only set by Anna,the discourse has also limited itself largely to the Lokpal Bill,which is an instrumentality and perhaps,can repair to some degree some kinds of corruption.

Or plug some holes.

Yes. But corruption for me is also arbitrary use of power. It’s inequality that persists in the country—economic,social,political lack of access. They are all part of a larger system of corruption.

But one area where we might agree with the Anna group is that so far law-making in this country had not been participatory. Elected people and bureaucrats made most of the laws in the past.

Actually for me,the participatory process began in 1992-93 with the Right to Information Act because then we just fashioned a very small discourse in a panchayat,amongst our jan sunvaaiyi. Thereafter the discourse grew and the basic draft of the Act was made by Justice P B Sawant when he was the chair of the Press Council of India. In a way,he did fashion the law and his law went around and was received by legislators,sent to Parliament,to all the Chief Ministers,to the Prime Minister. But there was a huge gestation period because it went through the H D Shourie Committee and it went through various committees. It was debated on by journalists,by the Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS) in Chennai. In Bombay,Anna himself was party to a big debate on the Maharashtra law. So there were various laws made and through that process,the best practice evolved where I think everybody was involved.

What was your experience with parliamentary processes—Standing Committee,Parliament or MPs?

We were a part of the pre-legislative process when we made the law. Once it (RTI) went to the government,we were out. The Right to Information Act,2005 came out of a political process. The National Common Minimum Programme brought out by UPA-I made a promise of a better RTI Act. That’s how the older law passed by the NDA government was set aside and this law went and got made in a different way by the government. They revised various things that we had said and a weak law was placed in Parliament. But in the Standing Committee,we got 153 amendments made to the law.

Were these 153 amendments made by the MPs to weaken the law or were these mostly amendments made by you and others to strengthen the law? In the end,did we have a stronger law or a weaker law?

A stronger law than what was sent to Parliament and which kind of approximated the law that we had made. Though compared to our draft,there were many things that were not there. We had wanted NGOs included,political parties included,we had wanted everybody included. The government only kept itself and took us all out. That was the first weakness of the government law.

So did you get 90 per cent of your draft,80 per cent of your draft?

I would say around 90 per cent of our draft. That’s not at all bad because it went through due process.

So from where does this complete distrust and impatience of the parliamentary process come now—that the Standing Committee is nothing,Parliament is nothing,just pass this Bill?

The dissatisfaction with all processes of governance is paramount in this country. All of us are disgusted at periods of time. The question is,can we keep democracy intact without a parliamentary process? A democratic institution should be called to book to be accountable. But certain processes,I think,should remain. We should battle with those processes,make them transparent and accountable and make them people-friendly.

But do you have some sympathy for this impatience with the parliamentary process and the government? The impatience that says: ‘They only intend to cheat us. Now,we have a bhramastraa in Anna Hazare. Be reasonable,do it his way’.

I completely understand the impatience. All of us sympathise with it. All of us get possessed by impatience but there are certain things we have to be cautious about. One is,how many of us have read the law that has been set up as the Jan Lokpal Bill? What is it in the Jan Lokpal Bill which will perpetuate the system we are fighting and how much of it will combat the system we are fighting are things which must be seriously considered. And there,if differences occur,they must be patiently heard. We can’t become offensive and completely dismissive of other opinions.

So if you are not with me,you are with the corrupt or with the corporates…

Or with somebody else but actually it has been very funny. The government tells the campaign that if they oppose the law it’s because they are with the Americans or for foreign money or whatever. The campaign tells us if we do not agree with the formulation they make,then we are with the government or with corruption or we are traitors or whatever else it may be.

In the very beginning you said these were ‘interesting times’. So a lot of what we take for granted is currently on test or under pressure?

Some of the things we take for granted is on test. One is that I always believed that civil society formations would be very liberal formations. That it would allow for differences,negotiating spaces,a genuine desire to listen and change. Because if you don’t change,then that listening becomes a formal exercise just as the government does very often. Calls us to various hearings,just listens to us,does precisely what it wants.

Do you find this under some stress now—this whole openness about the debate,flexibility about moving back and forth or front and back?

Two red herrings have come out of this debate. One is that if you are part of civil society,then you have no right to a different opinion because you break ranks. But we feel that civil society is a very large area. So from Mr Ambani to the peasant,we are all civil society.

Civil society is not one ideological army?

It cannot be.

Because civil society ranges from pro-Naxalite groups to pro-RSS groups.

True. That’s where this Lokpal is seen by many of us as also a big debate on centralisation versus de-centralisation. The Jan Lokpal Bill is a very centralised bill.

Also explain the concept of five Lokpals—the baskets.

What we did think was,first of all,if it is a very large formation,we are fighting against bureaucratic diseases of corruption,delay,of various other things. Just those seven years in the IAS have led me to believe that if in fact we do have a large bureaucratic structure,the largeness of it by itself becomes an issue of corruption and accountability becomes a problem. It will carry the same diseases of the large government structure.

Since I studied biology,I can say because it will be cloned from the same tissue.

Yes,because where are we getting it from otherwise? We don’t have any other tissue in India. The same kind of people,same kind of system will come. So,we are saying divide it into four plus one. We are saying separate corruption—high-level corruption,including the PM,the Cabinet is one.

But not judiciary in your case?

Yes,including judiciary. We bring them also under scrutiny. But we are saying keep them separate because,many of the senior judges like Justice Venkatachaliah,Justice Verma and many other honest judges have argued and we are somewhat convinced by their arguments.

And these judges are the ones who made the Supreme Court what it is,made the Election Commission what it is?

That is right. They say that independence is of absolute importance to the health of Indian democracy. So the independence of judiciary is absolutely crucial. If the makers of the Constitution felt that there should be separation,I believe that they really toiled hard to look at systems all over the world. Some of these systems don’t change with modernisation or whatever else. So just as audits and accounts are always separated,you have to have separate systems for all this. You have to have oversight. The circularity of oversight—like the Jan Lokpal Bill will look at the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will look at the Jan Lokpal Bill—might lead to a collusion. So we suggested that there must be a special judicial accountability.

So it’s like you scratch my back,I scratch yours or you guard my back,I guard yours.

So with that in mind,we suggested that the Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill,which is already there in Parliament,should be strengthened. All of us are unhappy with it. We are unhappy with the Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill,so the government will have to revisit the Bill,which is already in Parliament,revisit also the CVC Bill which will look at bureaucratic corruption. Remove certain things but these are existing institutions and the Lokpal will be a high-level Lokpal. You know,none of us can comprehend virtual corruption,treaties across the world,pay-off systems,external banks. Everything is in a different world. For that you need a very sharp,focused,special set of people who will catch that. Grievances must be separate. (There are) million grievances in our country. Even today if I go and sit in a meeting anywhere,the first thing is “hamari arzii le lijiye”,Toh arzii toh bahut hoti hain. Grievances must be separate.

If I understand you correctly,you see the danger that the fight against corruption will get overwhelmed by grievances?

Grievances will just bring it down…and it is also a bottom-up process because grievances have to be settled where people are.

Before I let you go,tell me a couple of things that you will say to your friends from civil society. And what will you tell the government which has taken many mis-steps?

I would say to the government that think before you act. I haven’t seen a set of more thoughtless acts than what the government has done—absolutely thoughtless,mindless acts. Having said that,I would say to my civil society friends that we always quote the Buddha,we quote Gandhiji that compassion and tolerance have been the ideals of India. We really need to understand that difference has to be tolerated. If I want dissent,I must listen to dissent.

You have been called many things,starting with jholawallah but one thing you were called was traitor.

It is a new apparatus. It’s interesting again to recall the traitor. I’ll have to go see the dictionary to see what is a traitor. Traitor to an ideology,traitor to the country? I have never been a traitor to my own principles.

If I may so,our paper is one of the strongest critics of the NAC in so many things. At the same time,we have communicated with you all the time and so have you.

But,the interesting thing is that I believe I have multiple roles and multiple labels. The NAC is two days in a month. Rest of the time,I am a citizen of India,an activist. I am so many things and even in the NAC,I agree with some of the issues that you have raised. The NAC needs to be put into theoretical framework. Today,it is a part of the pre-legislative process but it has never claimed to be a part of it.

Even if we disagree with you on many things,we know that you are amongst people who guarantee our freedom,safeguard our freedoms along with so many millions of others. It has been such privilege that you found time for us. Thank you very much.

Transcribed by Chaitanya Gudipaty