Not much purpose will be served if Parliament were to pass the Lokpal Bill in the Winter Session only to appease the Anna campaign
The three-hour-long all-party consultation which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosted at his residence on Wednesday appears not to have helped make the picture clearer on the vexed and highly debatable issue of creating the office of Lokpal, which will have long-term implications for our parliamentary
democracy. Some believe the Lokpal envisaged by elements of civil society will help eradicate corruption. Whether that goal is achievable or not, there is little doubt that if the so-called “strong” Lokpal being talked about becomes a reality, the politico-administrative system as we know it will be modified in ways that may undermine our constitutional system.
Going by the available reports, the meeting — being held in preparation for introducing the Lokpal Bill in Parliament — threw up the sense that it might be best to delay consideration of the proposed law until such time as a consensus among political parties in the system was available since the questions raised are of far-reaching import. This makes sense. It is noteworthy that the various non-Congress parties which attended the “public debate” organised by Anna Hazare’s followers at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on Sunday have articulated this view. Clearly, not much purpose is likely to be served if Parliament were to pass a deeply contested law in the Winter Session only to appease the Anna Hazare campaign.
As has become his habit, the activist from Maharashtra has threatened to go on another fast from December 27. Parliament cannot be made a hostage to his protest timetables, or adopt his agenda. He is free to act as he pleases so long as he and his followers stay within the law. Indeed, from the actions and words of the Hazare group leaders in recent months, it is clear that their fasts and anti-Congress demonstrations will continue as a voice of the Opposition — whether a Lokpal Bill is passed in the Winter Session or not. It is also evident that the Hazare campaign is not only about corruption. Mr Hazare himself lauded the scuttling of the proposed move for FDI in multi-brand retail, thanks to “Mamata Didi”.
The flaw in the discussion of the Lokpal question by the political class — which was amply reflected in the deliberations of the standing committee of Parliament dealing with the issue — is that it has concerned itself exclusively with the points raised by the Hazare group. The present stage of the Lokpal debate is all about specific demands raised by Mr Hazare and his acolytes. Regrettably, the parameters are not about the intrinsic merits of the case. This lacuna needs to be attended to without delay for any meaningful appreciation of the office of Lokpal, or ombudsman, in the Indian context.
Post new comment