While both the government and Team Anna indicated Thursday that they were willing to talk further on the Lokpal Bill, a further hardening of positions by the two sides showed that a consensus in the joint drafting committee on the proposed anti-corruption legislation was still elusive.

Anti-graft crusader Anna Hazare, alleging the government had “backtracked” on the bill, threatened to resume his fast from August 16, while the government asserted it would not bow down under pressure and would not allow creation of a “parallel” structure undermining the established constitutional order.
Making it clear that even if civil society members in the joint drafting committee did not cooperate, the government reiterated its resolve to come out with a “strong and sound” Lokpal Bill draft by the June 30 deadline. After the talks deadlocked at Wednesday’s meeting of the JDC, Mr Hazare accused the government of having “no intention” of enacting a strong anti-corruption law. “It has backtracked on the promises that it will agree to all suggestions forwarded by civil society members,” he added.
Mr Hazare, whose April hungerstrike had drawn a considerable nationwide response which rattled the government, also said he would begin an indefinite fast from August 16 if the government brought in “diluted” legislation.
Shortly after Team Anna briefed the media at 5 pm, three JDC government representatives — P. Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid — held a press briefing at 6.30 pm, when they asserted that the government would not succumb to “pressure tactics” adopted by civil society members. Ridiculing the threats by Team Anna, home minister P. Chidambaram said: “I don’t think that fasting is a way of drafting a bill.”
Earlier in the day, as soon as Mr Hazare accused the government of “backtracking” on its promises and questioned the rationale behind sending two versions of the Lokpal Bill to the Cabinet for consideration, Mr Sibal and AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and discussed the strategy to handle this ticklish issue.
“You cannot threaten and negotiate at the same time... This is not the way forward...The government is not going to get diverted by abuses and slander,” Mr Sibal said at the press briefing.
Mr Chidambram asserted that many of Team Anna’s demands could not be accepted because “a structure parallel to the government cannot be allowed”. He added: “We cannot create a parallel government outside the government that controls every action of the government. We have serious differences on the issue.”
Mr Chidambaram maintained that the basic features of the Constitution cannot be altered and political processes have to be respected. “Laws are made by Parliament. The Congress is not the only elected party. There are other parties. One has to respect the political processes... There is a gap between what is desirable and what is possible,” he added.
Refuting the allegations by Team Anna that government representatives did not discuss issues, that they just announced decisions, Mr Sibal said: “This is not true. We have been discussing various aspects of the bill. On the issue of the scope of the Lokpal, we have a view that it is not possible for the anti-graft institution to deal with more than 40 lakh Central government employees. and we gave reasons for that. But without listening to our reasons, they just insist on an all-pervasive Lokpal. We ask them to give their reasons, but their attitude so far is either their way or (the) highway.”
Dismissing the civil society members’ demand for a referendum on the Lokpal issue, Mr Chidambaram said the Constitution does not provide for such a measure and wondered if legislation can be put to such a vote clause by clause.
The ministers also cautioned against making the Lokpal an all-powerful body, wondering what controls could be applied if the Lokpal or its officials go corrupt.
On the contentious issue of bringing the Prime Minister under the Lokpal’s purview, Mr Chidambaram said there could be many possibilities, including doing so with “clearly carved out exceptions”, or after the person demits office. “There is no decision on it. It is a matter of discussion,” he added.