Murder at Midnight - India's Tryst with Travesty

Murder at Midnight - India's Tryst with Travesty !!!

At the stroke of the midnight hour on December 30, 2011 , we made our tryst - not with our destiny as Jawaharlal Nehru said on Aug 15, 1947 - but with a travesty of democracy ! We hung our heads in shame when the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Vice President Hamid Ansari abruptly adjourned the session and called for the National Song to be played with out passage of the Lok Pal Bill in the House.

After 43 years of struggle and plenty of practical advice and suggestions from all sections of society, including legal luminaries, the country is still left with out  a strong and effective LokPal at the Centre, Lok Ayuktas in the States and Lok Adhikaris in the districts. 

We have heard a lot of rhetoric, especially so in the past few months from the political class about the need and urgency to fight corruption. However, when it came to the crunch, the UPA government, our Parliament (both Houses) and our political class let us down. This will only further the indignation of We, the People of India.

This is the eighth time that the Nation has been badly left down by our elected representatives, who have clearly - across the board - demonstrated their unwillingness to fight the cancer of corruption, to which they have paid loads of lip service. All our democratic institutions have let us down - it clearly points to a deep rooted mal intention not to let effective Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta institutions to emerge.

One, the UPA Government. By adopting a "My Way or the Highway", the UPA Government has shown scant respect for the will of the People and for the institution of Parliament itself. They first brought in a completely toothless ineffective bill earlier (prior to the August showdown) and despite all the subsequent consultations and discussions in the Standing Committee and outside, the revised Bill had also several serious lacunae.

1. The Lokpal / Lokayuktas have no powers of suo-motu enquiry. Such powers are vital to enhance the efficacy of these ombudsmen, and ability to gather intelligence, particularly about collusive corruption. If a complaint of a citizen is mandatory, many cases of gross corruption may escape attention as false, frivolous or vexatious complaints will invite penalties (Section 46 of the Bill). In many cases, there can only be grave suspicion and circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence of corruption will not be forthcoming. Absence of powers of suo-motu enquiry will convert Lokpal/ Lokayukta into a reactive,  passive post-office. We need pro-active, innovative ombudsman. The earlier Bill provided for suo-motu enquiry. There is no rational explanation for its deletion in the Bill now, and this omission should be rectified.
2. Lokayukta should be part of the central law as envisaged in the present Bill. Article 253 clearly gives parliament the power to make legislation since the United Nations Convention Against Corruption has been ratified by India on May 1, 2011. The argument that such a provision in a central law is against federalism is disingenuous. We cannot have a movement in every state to create Lokayukta. In any case, this Bill is a part of procedural law dealing with investigations and prosecution of corruption offences. This is entirely within the Parliament’s jurisdiction. The power of appoint the Lokayukta and other related matters vest in the States. Creation of Lokayuktas is the need of the hour, and any efforts to delete Lokayukta provisions from the central law should be firmly resisted and rebuffed.
3. It was vital to have Local Ombudsmen (Lokadhikari's) in States under Lokayukta’s control and supervision. These local ombudsmen, one per district, can deal with lower bureaucracy, and will report to Lokayukta. Thus, jurisdiction over local bureaucracy will vest in Lokayukta even as the institution is not swamped by cases of petty corruption.
4. Anti-Corruption Bureaux (ACB) at State level are completely untouched by the present Bill. Unless they are directly under Lokayukta’s superintendence, status quo will continue and they will be politically manipulated. Unlike in case of the CBI, the appointments of ACB director and senior officials are completely under political control in states. The appointment of director of CBI by a collegiums of PM, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of India is a vast improvement. Officials of CBI are appointed under CVC Act by a collegiums headed by full CVC. In states no such provisions exist. It is vital that ACB is brought under Lokayukta’s superintendence.
5. Section 6A of the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 197 of CrPC continue unchanged, and only cases referred by Lokpal / Lokayukta are exempted from these legal impediments. CBI and ACB are rendered ineffective to act independently in respect of cases directly taken up by them. This is a travesty of rule of law, and makes these agencies helpless in combating corruption. These three provisions should be completely repealed. If any prior sanction of prosecution is deemed necessary, such powers should be vested in the Lokpal / Lokayukta.

This government showed no respect for the dissenting notes in the Standing Committee as well as the debates in the public and civil society sphere. if the Government had shown statesman like flexibility on key amendments, it is quite possible that the Bill could have been passed in both the Houses, including with a constitutional status for Lok Pal. A huge opportunity for a historic victory for true democracy was lost. Not only that, they seem to have deliberately orchestrated a farce in the proceedings, that lead to the disruption and the abrupt closure of the session. The Government clearly and unequivocally sent a message to the people of India, that it had NO intention to conclude passage of the Bill in this Winter Session - a deadline that it had itself committed to.

Two, the institution of the Presiding Officer (Chairman of Rajya Sabha) has been tarnished. The Chairman had every right to allow the proceedings to continue, especially so when the majority of the House members were inclined to continue and work on the passage of the Bill. Despite repeated pleas by the members, the session was abruptly adjourned. There would have been NO constitutional / procedural violation if the session has continued, and voting was conducted on the Bill along with its various proposed amendments. The President of India, as reported in the media, had apparently no objections to the session continuing, further clarifying that Presidential permission to do so, was in fact not required.

Three, Prime Minsister Manmohan Singh, Leader of the House in the Rajya Sabha, sat through the proceedings silently, as though he had no will or desire to conclude the passage of the Bill. If the Leader of the House had shown sagacity and reached out in a non partisan manner to both the Opposition as well as the Allies, victory could have been certainly snatched from the jaws of defeat. The Prime Minister, with his Nero like fiddling while the House burnt, has lost the moral confidence of We, the People of India.

Four, the whole of the political class within and outside the UPA government, by bringing in a red herring  of violation of federal structure of the nation, clearly went back on the promise made to the people within the very same hallowed walls of Parliament in August, through the Sense of the House resolution. Article 253 of our constitution, clearly provides for a scenario such as Lok Pal + Lok Ayukta in a single centrally legislated Act, given that the Nation is party to the UN Treaty which has been ratified by Parliament. Further, the RTI Act clearly provides a legal and parliamentary precedence for the same. Without a Centrally  legislated Lok Pal + Lok Ayukta Act, the country will need 28 such public agitations to get it passed effectively in each of the States ! That is probably another century of wasted opportunity. The people of India do not have such patience anymore.

The honest tax paying middle class gentry can no longer afford to continue disengaging with our politics. If you Love democracy, you cannot afford to Hate politics. The answer to Bad Politics is not NO Politics, but Clean Politics. Getting involved in political interventions and actions by the best and brightest in India is the only sustainable response to the current political impasse.

We, The People of India will not give up this fight. The 43 year struggle is now in the last lap. Victory of We, the People of India, is guaranteed. 

Satyameva Jayate !!!

 

21st Century India CANNOT be run with 19th Century style politics !

WHy I am Anna

I'm Anna because he brought thousands of people out of the serenity of their houses into scorching heat of public places, which were noisy and full of mud and rain water, to fight for their rights — their right to tell the government that they want a strong system to prevent and fight corruption, to castigate those who are guilty of stealing our money.

I'm Anna because he didn't use any means of violence as his weapon. Indeed, he used the mahatma's non-violence — a weapon that doesn't destroy life but changes society.

I'm Anna because he did not denigrate democracy. He never asked the Prime Minister to step down; neither did he ask the ruling party to quit power.

He only reminded the government that the people are the masters of the land.

I'm Anna because he does not belong to any political party; his acts are not in favour of any party. He did not discriminate people on the basis of religion, caste, creed or sex. I don't remember any name or religion of the person around me while shouting “mai bhi anna tu bhi anna ab to sara desh hai anna” in Ramlila Maidan. I knew only one thing — they were my friends, Indians and countrymen.

I'm Anna because he is one of those people who gave up food so that the poor can have food, without caring about his health or age or even his life.

I'm Anna because once again he made us realise that we are a nation, we are united.

John Lawrence rightly remarked on the first War of Independence “Had a single leader of ability arisen among them [the rebels] we [British] must have been lost beyond redemption.” We had an able leader with us this time and that is why we won the battle. But the war remains to be tackled.