COMMENT

Unrepresentative Voices on the Lokpal

The civil society initiative on the Lokpal arrogates to itself the power to decide on the shape of the institution.
Vinod Vyasulu writes:

e are faced with the demand of a few individuals, called civil society by the press, for a strong Jan Lokpal Bill to be passed in the monsoon session of Parliament. First, it is important to note that what the media refers to as Team Anna represents no one but themselves. Calling themselves civil society does not give them the right to represent the Indian citizen. Since they claim to do so, and claim to do so better than elected Members of Parliament, it has become important to reiterate this point. That there is sympathy for the cause a ght against corruption does not alter this basic fact. Ours is a representative democracy, and bills must originate in Parliament. Bypassing Parliament and contempt for elected representatives however well deserved it may be in individual cases is destructive of the institution of representative demo cracy. Unlike Team Anna, these are people who have been elected to hold ofce. They have been elected by us. And we can vote them out next time if we choose. We have no such relationship with Team Anna. Threatened by a fast unto death by Anna Hazare, the union government agreed to the formation of a Joint Drafting Committee of ministers and Team Anna, misnamed civil society representatives. This is a corrupt government that does not deserve our trust. But at least it has been elected. Team Anna has presented its draft and demanded that it be accepted. There is no open mind, no tolerance of other views. This is blatant coercion by the few. If you do not accept this draft, Anna will go on a fast unto death. A law by itself is not the solution to the problem of corruption, as Team Anna seems to believe. We live in a complex society, and there is a political economy within which laws are passed and implemented. We are unfortunately in a time when laws may be passed, but are not properly implemented. Indeed, we have situations in which well-meant laws have actually given a llip to corruption. Think of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It can be argued that we have enough laws which, if implemented, would curb corruption. True, there are aws in these laws and that should be dealt with. But this is not what Team Anna has demanded. It wants the Jan Lokpal Bill that it has drafted passed. MPs are rubber stamps for Team Anna.

The union government has said that it accepts many of the proposals of Team Anna, but cannot accept a few propositions. One of these relates to the conduct of MPs within Parliament. Our Constitution provides for specic immunity to MPs so that they can speak and vote without fear or favour. This freedom of MPs cannot, and must not, be taken away lightly. Any law that does so would be ultra vires of the Constitution, liable to be struck down. And if it has to be taken away, it will require a constitutional amendment. This is not what Team Anna has asked for. Anna Hazares statement that he does not want to run a parallel government just shows his lack of understanding of the issue. It is said that power corrupts. Who is the powerful Jan Lokpal accountable to? To say the people of India, begs the question. How would one deal with a megalomaniac Jan Lokpal? These are matters that our MPs must deliberate on. Team Anna is free to make suggestions, but why should anyone just accept the demands of a few individuals, however distinguished they are? Democracy gives us the right to opinions. It demands that we respect this right in others. Team Anna is not listening; it knows all. There are other points of difference between the two sides. Anna Hazare has threatened to go on a fast again. While a fast is indeed a Gandhian technique of struggle, Gandhi himself deployed it very differently. And Gandhi used it at times of moral strife, such as for stopping communal massacres. He did not go on a fast in support of his demand of swaraj for India. He mobilised the people of India. Team Anna has no interest in mobilising the Indian citizen against the evil of corruption. It knows what is good for her. Just get this law passed and corruption will be eliminated. You have useless parliamentarians. They are corrupt and will continue to be. So let us let loose a powerful Jan Lokpal against them. This is what dictators have always promised. If the Jan Lokpal turns out to be a monster, it is the Indian citizen who will suffer. Change does not come through laws alone. Societies have to learn to work the laws. It is that lesson that the Indian citizen is learning through the practice of democracy. We have gone through an Emergency. Team Anna is telling us to risk another one.
Anyway, the reward has not been long in coming. An ofcial team is ying next week to Washington to negotiate with the World Bank a loan to cover the foreign exchange cost of developing collieries in the private sector of the industry... [One version of] the modication of the coal policy referred to above is that there would be no longer any ceiling on coal in the private sector, but in quantitative term[s] the change so far is that the private sector will take on a million tons more than had been provisionally allotted to it a year ago in the Draft Outline of the Third Plan

From 50 Years Ago

Vol XIii, No 26, july 1, 1961

weekly notes

World Bank Loan for Coal

When Sardar Swaran Singh conrmed in the Lok Sabha last November that the Governments coal policy had been modied to permit working of non-contiguous areas of private collieries, and maintained at the same

time that this represented no radical departure from the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956, it could be suspected that something was brewing, but one did not know exactly what it was. It was of course no secret that the World Bank had looked askance at Indias coal policy and that meant of course no foreign aid from this quarter for [the] development of coal. No industrial project in the public sector would be touched by the World Bank anyway, but aid to the private sector of the industry was also ruled out, until the policy in regard to coal, which it did not approve of, had been modied.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW july 9, 2011 vol xlvI no 28