Chetan Bhagat Improve Lokpal Bill|anti- corruption Movement |Anna Hazare SHARE
AND
DISCUSS 320 Share Tweet 2 "Once upon a time, there was
a king..." Haven't we all
grown up listening to such
...stories? I don't think any of
us read stories that went – "Once upon a time, there was
a democracy, with elected
representatives who were
answerable to the people
through the electoral process,
the courts and the Lokpal." We know the first line well.
We don't know how it works
in the second line at all.
Therein lies the problem in
pushing through the Lokpal
Bill. We Indians know something
is wrong with our system.
Yet, we find change
unsettling. People came
together in the Anna Hazare-
led anti-corruption movement and led it to victory.
However, when we sat down
to draft the Lokpal Bill,
apprehensions set in, caused
by the personal attacks on the
drafting committee members, the projected worst-case
scenarios on what could go
wrong and how the Lokpal
himself could become corrupt.
Some intellectuals called the
movement an attack on democracy.
Enjoying the citizens'
insecurities and confusion, the
government decided to do
what it does best —hoodwink us. The latest salvo from it is
that MPs and the PM should be
kept out of the bill's purview,
which in turn renders the bill
impotent and pointless even
before it is enacted. Let's step back to the basics.
Neither the movement, nor
the bill is an attack on
democracy. In fact, the
movement was a catalyst and
the bill gives Indian democracy its proper form.
Right now, we are not truly a
democracy, irrespective of
what your civics teacher
taught you in school. We are
closer to an elected monarchy, or kingocracy. We elect our
leaders, and give them all the
powers in the world. If they
do any wrong, the only
people who can investigate
them are among the ones who report to them. In other
words, they are not political
leaders; they are little kings
(complete with shoe-polishing
sycophants and traffic-
blocking privileges). There is a reason why we
have such a system. For
thousands of years, India had only kings. Then the British
came, ruled us for 250 years,
and left behind democracy-
like parliaments, courts and
governance systems.
However, ultimately, India was a colony run by British
leaders with absolute power.
In this system, having a
people's representative
ombudsman, or Lokpal, was
out of question. The British left, and our own
elected leaders replaced them.
The election was a good thing.
However, the chairs they sat
on had absolute power.
Everyone reported to them, and they didn't need to
answer to anyone. Thus began
a legacy of corrupt leaders,
who in turn created one of
the most corrupt nations on
earth. The corruption seeped down to lower levels of
power. From traffic cops to
oppressive husbands — abusing power in India
became normal.
The absolute power given to
our politicians often attracted
the least ethical and most
dishonest people to the profession. The Indian
politician became a shady
villain in our movies and
popular culture. We accepted
there was no way out. Rulers
had to be kings, and kings could do whatever they
wanted.
Corruption rose to
astronomical levels, while the
country remained poor.
Indians lacked basic infrastructure, education and
food, and faced massive
inflation even as politicians
swindled thousands of crores.
Yet, nobody could lodge an
FIR against them, or independently investigate
them. People finally became
sick of it and took to the
streets. Before it turned ugly,
the government buckled and
agreed to a Lokpal Bill. But then came the skeptics.
They asked 'how dare we
question the king'? Who is
this commoner Anna or
Arvind Kejriwal to draft a
law? What are they seeking? Are they trying to be king?
The government loved this
skepticism. They proposed the
bill shouldn't apply to MPs.
And since we Indians love
kings so much, we actually have a section of people
sympathizing with the
government.
The government agreed to
Anna's terms to make him
end his fast (and the movement). Now it's trying
to scuttle the process. For
what is the point of a Lokpal
if the politicians are not
included in the bill's purview?
What's more, some media members are actually giving
credence to the government's
point of view. They ask 'what
if the Lokpal harasses an MP'?
I wish to ask 'should the MP's
conduct be exempt from being questioned in the media
too'? Should a TV channel not
report wrongdoings of a
politician? If you hold a public
post, why can't a public body
question you? By the same logic, should you be
unanswerable to the courts as
well? Does the fact that a few
hundred thousand people
voted for you give you the
right to steal'? The Lokpal is only an
investigative and prosecution
authority. It doesn't pass
judgments, proclaim people
guilty, or punish them. Yes, it
should have the right to investigate anyone, just as the
police have over common
citizens. At the same time,
there are rights in place for
citizens that the police don't
abuse. Similar provisions can be in place for politicians. For
instance, a certain amount of
evidence may be required to
do a full-blown inquiry.
If we let the government
hoodwink us, we will lose a golden chance to make our
country a proper people's
democracy. The 'absolute
power' model doesn't work.
It has kept India poor since
Independence, while other nations have progressed.
We must not fear change. In
fact, we must fight to change
this faulty system, and take
to the streets again if
required. After all, the British didn't leave us after one
Jantar Mantar demonstration.
Either the government agrees
to a proper Lokpal Bill (which, in all sanity, they should),
ensure no one is above the
law, or we wait for Anna's
signal to hit the streets again.
Jai Hind.
CAclubindia
