The following was released at a press conference held today. The Press Conference was addressed by Prof KN Panikkar, Mahesh Bhatt and Shabnam Hashmi April, 22, 2011
MEDIA RELEASE
- Professor K N Panikkar speaking at the press conference on 22 April 2011
- Mahesh Bhatt speaking the press conference on 22 April 2011
After forty two years of forced incubation Lokpal Bill appears to be a distinct possibility. The agitation led by Anna Hazare against corruption has imparted a sense of urgency to it, particularly because of popular enthusiasm and even anger. Nevertheless, the developments leading to the constitution of the committee for the drafting of the Lokpal Bill and the provisions of the draft Bill raise several fundamental questions about the working of Indian democracy. Some of these questions demand urgent attention before the Bill is piloted through the Parliament. The method adopted by Anna Hazare to press his demand has an element of coercion, as he has left no room for discussion, debate and exchange of views. Anna Hazare may not stand comparison with Gandhiji, as some of his followers try to do, nor his methods could be equated with Gandhiji’s celebrated programme of passive resistance against the colonial state. The conditions are different and the causes are not similar. Anna has undertaken the fast in a functioning democracy, whatever its weaknesses and limitations and the cause he espouses has a very limited purpose.
Yet, within five days of Anna Hazare undertaking a ‘fast unto death’ at Jantar Mantar the government of India conceded his demand to constitute a committee to draft a bill for establishing the institution of Lokpal at the centre. The composition and terms of reference of the committee were ‘dictated’ by Anna Hazare, which the government appears to have accepted without much hesitation. The committee consisted of five ‘representatives’ of the civil society who in fact, were nominated by Anna and five ministers representing the government. The representatives of the civil society are Shanti Bhushan (former cabinet minister as co-chair), Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan, Aravind Kejriwal (RTI activist), Santosh Hegde (Lokayukta of Karnataka) and Anna Hazare himself. Anna reportedly made an attempt to assume the right to decide the names of Ministers as well which the government appears to have resisted. The government has nominated Pranabh Mukherji as the chairman of the committee with P. Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal, Veerappa Moily and Salman Khurshid as members.
Welcoming the initiative the Prime Minister has said that the ‘coming together of the government and civil society is a step that augurs well for democracy.’ But it should be apparent that no democratic principle was followed in the constitution of the committee. The representatives of civil society were handpicked by Anna and the government nominees do not reflect diverse political opinion represented in the Parliament.
A Magsaysay awardee, Anna brings to the movement against corruption considerable reputation and moral strength derived from his social work in a village in Maharashtra known as Ralegan Siddhi. Claiming himself to be apolitical, he entertains deep distrust of politics and politicians and seeks solution to the malaise of corruption in moral and religious terms. Supported by a few civil society activists and projected by a section of the English media as a saviour of the nation, he has launched his agitation against corruption which has rightly aroused the angst of the middle class. Many have described it as a second as second freedom struggle. Inherent in the whole episode is the coercion of the democratic system and the assertion of a few to represent the majority. The support to the agitation has come from the members of the middle class in the metropolitan cities
It is the timing of the agitation which accounts for the popular response rather than the moral content of the campaign. The neo-liberal conditions introduced by the ruling elite have opened up the possibilities of corruption in massive transfer of public assets and promotion of corporate interests through political patronage. It had started during the regime of the National Democratic Alliance and more vigorously pursued by the United Progressive Alliance. The unprecedented incidence of corruption in recent times is a concomitant of economic conditions created by liberalization. The sale of PSUs to the corporate sector saw the former anti-corruption champions like Arun Shourie in the corruption camp. The corruption is a complex issue embedded in bureaucratic rigidity, economic access and political power. Any attempt to reduce it as a moral issue and seeking a solution through the punishment of the individual is to adopt rather simplistic solutions. Such efforts are most welcome to state and its functionaries and even to the liberal intelligentsia. It appears that corruption is a great unifier. Anna could bring together Kiran Bedi and Swami Agnivesh along with communalists like Ram Madhav and Baba Ramdev on the same platform. Being apolitical Anna could also praise Modi for development, ignoring the moral problem so dear to his heart. It is not the absence of law which prevents action against the guilty but the political will to do so. All that the Jan Lokpal may attempt is to provide yet another ideological cover to the state.
The Committee quickly constituted by the mutual consent of Anna and the government has already started its deliberations. There are more than one draft bill presented in the first meeting and therefore it is premature to discuss the shape the Bill would eventually have. But there are some features which are likely to persist. Anna Hazare’s authoritarian approach to social problems as evident in the social ambience created in Ralegan and the principle of centralization of authority the state follows (NCHR Bill for instance) find common resonance in the drafts. As envisioned in these drafts Lokpal is likely to function in a social vacuum as a super judicial authority, undermining and subversive of the judicial system, which all said and done, has withstood the pressure and preserved the rights of the individual. There is nothing in the drafts to suggest that Lokpal will bring to bear a greater sense of transparency and accountability in the system than what the existing institutions have achieved or not achieved.
The most glaring weakness of the Bill is that it comes to play only after the event. Its role is not to prevent corruption but to punish the corrupt. In this respect the Draft does not provide a qualitatively different approach than that of the existing institutions of the State. Only when a system which is transparent is put in place prevention of corruption is possible. Social audit does not necessarily create such a transparency. Only when the existing mode of management is fundamentally altered to incorporate specific inputs in decision making the conditions favorable for corruption can be eliminated.
The corruption is indeed rampant and it is only likely to increase. Lokayukta has not succeeded in cleansing the states of corruption. Nor perhaps would the Jan Lokpal at the Center, unless it succeeds in making a total break with the existing practices. For that a necessary condition is the creation of a social consciousness which would decisively disapprove and reject the culture of favoritism and nepotism. In the process the meaning of corruption itself has to be redefined. In order to achieve that the bill may be sent to every panchayat for discussion so that Jan Lokpal would become an instrument of people’s empowerment.
Prof. K N Panikkar, Mahesh Bhatt, Shabnam Hashmi
ANHAD, 23, CANNING LANE, NEW DELHI-110001
RSS 2.0