Lions for Lambs-2

Many of my friends and acquaintances have expressed a plethora of emotions ranging from disagreement to ambivalence to bewilderment at my stance on the Jan Lokpal Bill. The one common denominator, however, has been the urging to explicate in more detail the reasons behind my seemingly vehement dismissal of the Anna Hazare movement. Perhaps there is some measure of truth in their admonitions; perhaps I am guilty of not making things as lucid as I should have. So let me give it a try now.

I do NOT deny the sincerity of the intent behind the Hazare movement; what I cannot condone is the manner in which it was executed. Corruption ails us in every realm of our existence-it is pervasive, it is debilitating, it is unbearable now. Yet, it is unacceptable to hold a country to ransom just because the government of the day does not accord your demand the urgency you believe it deserves.

I re-affirm my stand that the Jan Lokpal Bill, regardless of the final shape it takes, would be nothing more than another institution that we shall very soon be mocking as another case of governmental apathy and indifference. For the real problem cannot be addressed by adding yet another institution to combat corruption. The need of the hour is twin-pronged- stronger enabling legislation and more efficient governmental institutions.

For arguments sake, let us consider the demands of the Anna team in the final form of the bill. The prominent demands are the inclusion of the Prime Minister and the Judiciary under the purview of the Lokpal. Granted-they shall be covered within the ambit of the Lokpal. Does this imply that corruption shall be weeded out of the judicial system? Or that our future Prime Ministers shall be paragons of virtue?

No, it does not. And the reasons are simple;

1. The Ombudsman is essentially a platform for the public to present their grievances. He has the power to accept such grievances and investigate into the allegations. But he does NOT have any executive power to enforce justice-his powers are advisory in nature.

So even after the Lokpal has determined the culpability of an individual, the judicial system will still need to swing into action to deliver justice.

But if the judicial system, with its inordinate delays and inherent lethargy (in 2011, the Supreme Court is on vacation for almost three months!), could deliver this justice in a timely and reasonable manner, we would not need the Lokpal in the first place.

2. If the PM himself is found guilty of erroneous or deliberate commissions, who does the Lokpal report this misdemeanour to? The accused himself? Or to Parliament, for a flurry of debates that serves every partisan end but never address the issue at hand? Or to the judiciary, which cannot entertain any complaint that falls within the ambit of the functions covered by Article 105 of the Constitution of India?

Let us, however, assume that the PM is reported to an appropriate authority. Starting the, till the proceedings come to an end, what do we allow him to do? Should this tainted individual be allowed to run our country for us? Or should we stay rudderless till a final verdict is reached? For, bear in mind, the PM’s culpability is, under Art. 75 of the Constitution, an indictment of the entire Council of Ministers.

The potency of the PM’s powers is perhaps not fully appreciated by our extant political literature. Although it has not happened in our political history yet, were the PM to be removed or even the President to be impeached, the order would specify the date of their having to demit office. In stark contrast is the position maintained by the American system where, if the President were to be impeached, his impeachment would become effective at the exact minute of the verdict, implying their apprehension at letting that individual misusing even a moment more of the tremendous power vested in his office.

3. Most importantly, however, who exactly is expected to make these complaints to the Lokpal and with what credence? How many amongst the citizenry can possibly know of the machinations in these hallowed portals of power? The only time we do get to know of them are when they are reported by the media, by which time the issue has already snowballed into a controversy and is being investigated by some or the other govt. agency. And at this time, if we all behave like the responsible citizens that we suddenly see ourselves to be and register our complaints, will the Lokpal have even the wherewithal to sincerely scrutinize all those complaints on their due merit?

I was disappointed to watch the much-acclaimed speech by Sushma Swaraj in Parliament a few days back. In the 50-odd minutes that she spoke, most of her effort went into either maligning her political rivals or showcasing her alliances with the power elite. The one credit-worthy point that she made in all that time was that while the populace is angry with the high-level corruption in this country, it does not affect them directly. What affects them is the corruption that they have to live with every day-traffic challans, getting a telephone connection, applying for a passport etc.

And she is absolutely right in saying so. But almost equally, she is wrong in using this as a justification for bringing the lower levels of bureaucracy under the purview of the Lokpal (the third demand of the Anna group).

Exactly how big is the institution of the Lokpal envisaged to be if we expect it to deal with the entire governmental machinery all by itself? If a policeman in Sikkim refuses to lodge an FIR, will the Lokpal investigate the matter? Rather, will he be able to? Alongside complaints ranging from a BSNL official in Surat demanding baksheesh to restore an internet connection or a ticket collector in a Jammu-bound train expecting some money to convert a wait-listed ticket into a confirmed reservation?

Are we actually expected to take these petty complaints to a Union-level functionary? And if not, then what exactly is the uproar all about? Why are people treating this as a godsend?

Why is it that nobody seems to understand that what we need is more accountability in the existing institutions? If a policeman asks me for a bribe, I do not want to dash a letter off to Delhi- I want an official in the vicinity who can hear my complaint and dispense justice immediately. For that, we need transparency and accountability. And these cannot be garnered through yet another govt. functionary added to the multitude that already “serves” us. It can come only when we have laws that enforce the rights of the populace over and above the vested interests of a few. When we incorporate a bare minimum educational qualification for our legislators, when there is a time-line imposed on the hearing of every legal case, when we can make such complaints without fear of a backlash.

These laws can come into force when we have some deliberation upon their need. For this, we need Parliament to function in an atmosphere devoid of populist motives. And for that, we need movements like this one to understand the precedence of needs, not their popularity.

For the people who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.