Governance Now, April 16-30
Myths and misconceptions about Anna and his cause
Anna’s fast-unto-death unnerved many, and predictably so.
The ruling clique was annoyed but used mild language to denounce his Gandhian satyagraha and the cause. The Congress, which leads the union government, described it “unnecessary” and “premature” and warned that this would open a floodgate for such tactics to get every other demand, fair or unfair, conceded. Other politicians were harsh. Samajwadi Party spokesman Mohan Singh said it was a “Fascist tactics”. Raghuvansh Prasad of the RJD said such “outpouring of anger against political parties, politicians and political workers” that the country witnessed at Jantar Mantar and elsewhere “will take this large nation towards anarchy”.
The sceptics of the commentariat were nuanced. One wrote “A comic revolution of an obsolete man” to say, among other things, that “We must not underestimate what television can do to an absolute farce”.
A newspaper editorial was headlined “They, the people” with a sub-head: “Illiberal, self-righteous sound and fury isn’t quite the weapon against corruption”.
A policy wonk wrote “Of the few, by the few”, saying: “Sometimes a sense of unbridled virtue can also subvert democracy” and that “There is something deeply coercive about fasting unto death. When it is tied to an unparalleled moral eminence, as it is in the case of Anna Hazare, it amounts to blackmail”.
And added for good measure: “But B R Ambedkar was surely right, in one of his great speeches, to warn that recourse to such methods was opening up a democracy to the “grammar of anarchy””.
So what was so infuriating about a frail, 70-plus-year-old man’s fast to pressure the government to set up an apex corruption watchdog, the Lokpal, especially when for more than four decades, all the political parties in the country have conspired to keep it in the limbo?
Surely, a functional and mature democracy of ours, weighed down though by all-round corruption – involving ministers, senior bureaucrats and even high court and supreme court judges – deserves a corruption watchdog. What’s so alarming if Anna sits on a fast to press for the one?
Here we examine all the half-truths, untruths, myths and misconceptions that the politicians and the sceptics peddled to undermine Anna and his cause and see what their real worth is.
Myth I: Anna’s fast to press for Lokpal was unnecessary, premature and amounts to blackmail
Consider the run-up to Anna’s fast:
* For 42 years, the union governments of all hues – of the Congress, Janata Party, National Front, United Front, National Democratic Alliance or United Progressive Alliance – prevaricated to ensure the Lokpal Bill was not legislated.
* For two years, the PM and the CBI knew about the 2G spectrum scam, as Arun Shourie and others confirmed, but A Raja was not only made telecom minister again in 2009, he was given a free reign until the supreme court asked in October 2010: “The same minister is continuing. Is it the way the government is functioning? Is it rule of law?”
* The CAG forewarned government about the CWG scam in mid-2009 and then confirmed it in 2010. Suresh Kalmadi is still roaming free.
* Hasan Ali, his billions of dollars in tax havens and more than Rs 70,000 crore in pending tax came to the IT department’s notice in 2007. He was roaming free until the supreme court asked the government in March 2011: “What the hell is going on in this country?”
* Former CVC Pratyush Sinha, explained in a series of interviews post-retirement why he twiddled his thumbs for four years in office: CVC has no power, CVC is an advisory body, CVC has no jurisdiction over political executive. The government replaced him with P J Thomas, who was not put to trial for 20 years in a criminal case. The supreme court summarily dismissed him.
* After 42-years of trying, the government has come up with Lokpal Bill, 2010. This gives no suo motu power to Lokpal to register an FIR, investigate and prosecute the corrupt politicians. It can only take up cases referred to it by the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and send them back with its “recommendations”. But, it does have the power to try and punish – up to three years in jail with or without a fine of Rs 50,000 – those it thinks made frivolous complaints against the politicians!
Myth II: It undermines democracy, parliamentary system and the constitution to seek 50 percent membership in a committee to draft the Lokpal Bill or impose “Jan Lokpal Bill” the civil society has prepared on the government. It is the parliament’s prerogative to make laws.
Here is why what Anna and the people crowding around him are not guilty of the charge:
* This “myth” presupposes that democracy for you, me and Anna ends with casting of our votes. This is sheer ignorance and betrays a feudal mindset.
* Anna wants a say in “drafting” of the bill. His letter to the PM said clearly: “What are we asking for? We are not saying that you should accept the Bill drafted by us. But kindly create a credible platform for discussions – a joint committee with at least half the members from the civil society suggested by us”. This was repeated by him and others several times thereafter.
* It doesn’t amount to bypassing the parliamentary system. Because, once the “draft” is ready, it will go to the union cabinet, and then be introduced in parliament. The bill will be referred to a parliamentary standing committee and come back for debate in both houses of parliament. Then it will be consented to by the president and notified.
* If “drafting” the bill is an issue, the National Advisory Council (NAC) is guilty of dictating terms to the government on several legislations, including the Food Security Bill. And so are the industrial bodies like CII, FICCI and think tanks.
* All the landmark and progressive legislation of the past decade – the RTI Act, Forest Rights Act and the NREG Act – were actually drafted by the civil society. The parliament merely put its stamp of approval.
* The CVC Act of 2003 was dictated, clause by clause, by the supreme court. There are several other cases too. There exist many executive fiats, one of which brought the Planning Commission into existence. Do these violate parliament’s prerogative too?
Myth III: Anna and his supporters have opened up democracy to “grammar of anarchy”
Actually, the opposite is true. Pressing for a say in the policy making process, by way of Anna’s fast, shows something is wrong with our democracy in the first place. Active participation of people in the policy making is a healthy sign of a functional democracy.
Ambedkar’s “grammar of anarchy” speech came at the end of “framing” of the constitution in November 1949. He was asking people “to hold fast to constitutional methods” now that we have a constitution and not resort to either “bloody revolution” or “satyagraha”.
Let’s see how we have fared 61 years down the line:
* As P J Thomas pointed out to the supreme court, 153 of our MPs face criminal charges and yet continue to make laws in the parliament. Some of them get re-elected year after year. The law breakers have become law makers.
* The “single-directive” (a British hangover) mandates that no officer of the level of joint secretary and above can be prosecuted without government’s sanction (to which PJ Thomas owed his appointment as CVC).
* Suresh Kalmadi, Lalu Prasad, Mulayam Singh, Mayawati, Sukh Ram and others are roaming free despite serious charges of corruption and amassing disproportionate assets pending against them.
* There is no end to the scams – Adarsh scam, CWG scam, 2G spectrum scam, Niira Radia Gate, Isro spectrum scam, Cash-for-votes in parliament, CVC appointment and so on.
* Votes of confidence were won by the UPA-I several times by using the CBI (to get Mayawati and Mulayam on its side) and money power (WikiLeaks cables and display of cash in parliament).
* No credible anti-corruption watchdog. The CVC turned out to be dud.
* Sharad Pawar, who, as food and agriculture minister, has batted only for the blackmarketeers and hoarders and whose name comes up in connection with several scams and scandals and unsavoury characters, was a member of the GoM redrafting the Lokpal Bill. He conceded Anna’s point and resigned from the GoM, but not from the government.
Do any of these (and others mentioned earlier) measure up to constitutional values or methods to now condemn Anna’s fast as opening up our democracy to anarchy?
Myth IV: Conceding Anna’s demand will open the floodgates for such coercive tactics
On the contrary, it is a healthy sign that the people will have a greater say and active participation in policy making. It is clear that our representatives act like sovereigns for the next five years after getting elected and care little for people’s aspirations.
Seeking something from “their own government” (remember, democracy is by the people, for the people and of the people), even if by way of a fast when nobody cares or listens to them for decades is not a such bad idea. Or is it?
Myth V: How can some civil society groups arrogate to themselves the sole right to be “the people of India”?
This presupposes that “We, the people” – you, me, Anna and the civil society members like Arvind Kejriwal – don’t have any right or say on policy matters, not even at the “drafting” stage. This also presupposes that only “They, the people” – the politicians, legislators and their backers – hold constitutional (and perhaps, divine) right to decide the fate of the rest.
Besides, Anna’s platform is not exclusive. He and Kejriwal have said they will consult people from every corner of the country in drafting the bill.
Think it over. And don’t let yourself be drowned in the Goebbelsian propaganda being unleashed.
No comments:
Post a Comment