The Lokpal Bill Controversy
On December 22, the government finally introduced the controversial Lokpal bill in the Lok Sabha. The bill that envisages creation of anti-graft institutions at the central as well as state levels with a provision for including marginalized sections including minorities as members. A separate bill was also introduced for amending the Constitution to confer constitutional status to the proposed institutions. Both the houses would meet on December 27-29 to discuss the legislation.
The draft legislation states that the bill proposes to establish autonomous and independent institutions—a nine-member Lokpal at the central level and Lokayukta at the state level. The bill proposes to bring the prime minister under the purview of the nine-member Lokpal but with specific exclusions. The Lokpal has its jurisdiction to include all categories of government officers and employees but the investigation is to be done by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Fifty per cent of members shall be from amongst Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC), minorities and women (a corrigendum was brought with the bill, to include the provision for minorities).
The responses to the draft legislation have been varied and quite surprising in some cases. Anna Hazare dismissed the legislation as weak. Team Anna expressed the view that the bill would make the ombudsman a puppet in the hands of the government. Many political parties opposed the move. The Bharatiya Janata Party was opposed to the minority quota provision, calling it unconstitutional. It said the bill violated federal principles as it amounted to dictating to states to establish Lokayuktas. Parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal said the government was bringing the bill under duress and for the fear of agitation by Anna Hazare. Lalu Prasad, who strongly fought for the inclusion of minorities in the bill, strongly opposed the bill saying it was not enough to tackle corruption. He also opposed the inclusion of the prime minister under the Lokpal’s ambit. He demanded that ex-MPs should not be included within the Lokpal. He also slammed Team Anna and asked the government not to get cowed down by threats of fresh protests.
The draft Lokpal bill, it seems, has satisfied no one. There are a few issues that need to be pointed out but first, the introduction of a separate citizens charter bill in parliament. While some civil society groups have welcomed it with reservations, it has failed to please Anna who said it was too centralized and failed to check corruption at the lowest level. He wants it to be part of the Lokpal bill. It appears that Anna wants anything and everything to come under the purview of the proposed Lokpal. He wants the prime minister under the Lokpal’s purview without any condition whereas this is not feasible, as national security matters have to be excluded. Then take the CBI. The draft bill does not include the CBI under the Lokpal’s purview but instead gives it a separate inquiry wing. The Lokpal can also refer cases to the CBI for further inquiry. But Team Anna has called for its total inclusion under the Lokpal. The BJP has suggested splitting the anti-corruption wing of the CBI and bringing it under Lokpal. Parties like the SP and the RJD are opposed to the CBI being under Lokpal or splitting it. The government wants to keep administrative control over the CBI. The draft bill says the CBI will report to the Lokpal on cases referred to it by the anti-graft commission, which seems fair enough as the CBI sees cases of not only corruption but also other criminal activities. It does not make sense to place the CBI in a body that is concerned only with the aspect of corruption. Some parties suggest splitting the CBI’s investigative and prosecution wings and placing the latter under the Lokpal. But this will only hamper the effectiveness of the functioning of the CBI as a single unit. A solution would be to grant greater autonomy to the CBI so that it can have greater independence and accountability. This would work to the benefit of all concerned
(the Election Commission, for instance, has benefitted with the move to grant it greater autonomy). But certainly, the CBI has to be placed outside the ambit of the Lokpal.
There is the reservation where the Lokpal members are concerned. The reservation for minorities in Lokpal was added in the government’s bill at the last minute after political parties demanded it. The SP and RJD were most vocal in raising the issue of reservation for minorities, supported by left parties. Needless to say, the BJP has protested reservation for minorities in Lokpal. Surprisingly, Team Anna has been silent on the issue of reservation, though the demand for reservation had come from other quarters of civil society. But why? Anna, with his broad agenda to root out specifically corruption but also other ills from society, did not think it worthwhile to constitute a united force, a Team Anna, that would represent various sections of the populace. How many dalits, backward classes and minorities find representation in the Anna team? It lacks the representation of those people who are the greatest victims of corruption and social oppression in general—the SCs and STs, backward classes, and minorities. After all, is Team Anna, the force that has rocked the government of the day and mobilized the people of the country on the course of a revolution-of-sorts, just an assortment of faithful followers of Anna who do not represent the oppressed and marginalized sections of the society? What is its credibility then, if it is going to represent just the well-off classes of society—the so-called ‘liberalised’ and ‘secular’ intellectuals.
Any solution to addressing the Lokpal controversy is not possible as long as the government and the parliament kowtow the line of Team Anna fearing opposition in terms of rallies and hunger strikes involving the people at large. The Congress, which has been somewhat passive in responding to Team Anna’s perpetually offensive mode of demanding, has now asserted itself with vigor. It has recognized the need to be emphatic and assertive if not aggressive. It has systematically listed out the action taken by the government to combat corruption. Sonia Gandhi has vowed she would fight for Lokpal but without succumbing to threats of political retaliation or agitations a la Anna’s style of social activism. The bottom-line is that neither the government nor the parliament nor the country can function as per the diktat of any one person or group, even if it is the ‘indomitable’ (dictating and uncompromising) Team Anna.
The draft legislation states that the bill proposes to establish autonomous and independent institutions—a nine-member Lokpal at the central level and Lokayukta at the state level. The bill proposes to bring the prime minister under the purview of the nine-member Lokpal but with specific exclusions. The Lokpal has its jurisdiction to include all categories of government officers and employees but the investigation is to be done by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Fifty per cent of members shall be from amongst Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC), minorities and women (a corrigendum was brought with the bill, to include the provision for minorities).
The responses to the draft legislation have been varied and quite surprising in some cases. Anna Hazare dismissed the legislation as weak. Team Anna expressed the view that the bill would make the ombudsman a puppet in the hands of the government. Many political parties opposed the move. The Bharatiya Janata Party was opposed to the minority quota provision, calling it unconstitutional. It said the bill violated federal principles as it amounted to dictating to states to establish Lokayuktas. Parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal said the government was bringing the bill under duress and for the fear of agitation by Anna Hazare. Lalu Prasad, who strongly fought for the inclusion of minorities in the bill, strongly opposed the bill saying it was not enough to tackle corruption. He also opposed the inclusion of the prime minister under the Lokpal’s ambit. He demanded that ex-MPs should not be included within the Lokpal. He also slammed Team Anna and asked the government not to get cowed down by threats of fresh protests.
The draft Lokpal bill, it seems, has satisfied no one. There are a few issues that need to be pointed out but first, the introduction of a separate citizens charter bill in parliament. While some civil society groups have welcomed it with reservations, it has failed to please Anna who said it was too centralized and failed to check corruption at the lowest level. He wants it to be part of the Lokpal bill. It appears that Anna wants anything and everything to come under the purview of the proposed Lokpal. He wants the prime minister under the Lokpal’s purview without any condition whereas this is not feasible, as national security matters have to be excluded. Then take the CBI. The draft bill does not include the CBI under the Lokpal’s purview but instead gives it a separate inquiry wing. The Lokpal can also refer cases to the CBI for further inquiry. But Team Anna has called for its total inclusion under the Lokpal. The BJP has suggested splitting the anti-corruption wing of the CBI and bringing it under Lokpal. Parties like the SP and the RJD are opposed to the CBI being under Lokpal or splitting it. The government wants to keep administrative control over the CBI. The draft bill says the CBI will report to the Lokpal on cases referred to it by the anti-graft commission, which seems fair enough as the CBI sees cases of not only corruption but also other criminal activities. It does not make sense to place the CBI in a body that is concerned only with the aspect of corruption. Some parties suggest splitting the CBI’s investigative and prosecution wings and placing the latter under the Lokpal. But this will only hamper the effectiveness of the functioning of the CBI as a single unit. A solution would be to grant greater autonomy to the CBI so that it can have greater independence and accountability. This would work to the benefit of all concerned
(the Election Commission, for instance, has benefitted with the move to grant it greater autonomy). But certainly, the CBI has to be placed outside the ambit of the Lokpal.
There is the reservation where the Lokpal members are concerned. The reservation for minorities in Lokpal was added in the government’s bill at the last minute after political parties demanded it. The SP and RJD were most vocal in raising the issue of reservation for minorities, supported by left parties. Needless to say, the BJP has protested reservation for minorities in Lokpal. Surprisingly, Team Anna has been silent on the issue of reservation, though the demand for reservation had come from other quarters of civil society. But why? Anna, with his broad agenda to root out specifically corruption but also other ills from society, did not think it worthwhile to constitute a united force, a Team Anna, that would represent various sections of the populace. How many dalits, backward classes and minorities find representation in the Anna team? It lacks the representation of those people who are the greatest victims of corruption and social oppression in general—the SCs and STs, backward classes, and minorities. After all, is Team Anna, the force that has rocked the government of the day and mobilized the people of the country on the course of a revolution-of-sorts, just an assortment of faithful followers of Anna who do not represent the oppressed and marginalized sections of the society? What is its credibility then, if it is going to represent just the well-off classes of society—the so-called ‘liberalised’ and ‘secular’ intellectuals.
Any solution to addressing the Lokpal controversy is not possible as long as the government and the parliament kowtow the line of Team Anna fearing opposition in terms of rallies and hunger strikes involving the people at large. The Congress, which has been somewhat passive in responding to Team Anna’s perpetually offensive mode of demanding, has now asserted itself with vigor. It has recognized the need to be emphatic and assertive if not aggressive. It has systematically listed out the action taken by the government to combat corruption. Sonia Gandhi has vowed she would fight for Lokpal but without succumbing to threats of political retaliation or agitations a la Anna’s style of social activism. The bottom-line is that neither the government nor the parliament nor the country can function as per the diktat of any one person or group, even if it is the ‘indomitable’ (dictating and uncompromising) Team Anna.
No comments:
Post a Comment