Lokpal: Just a battle to remain relevant for Govt, Anna Hazare

Without any hesitation, the ongoing debate on Lokpal can easily be described as gibberish. The government regards its Lokpal bill as the ultimate it can offer. Team Anna rejects it as highly inadequate. Instead of a constructive approach, both government and the civil society, having lost focus, are now engaged in a blame game.

The bill tabled in parliament is not flawless. Yet the ruling alliance is busy pulling all stops to make people believe that it is a pathbreaking piece of legislation; fully equipped to eradicate the ever-growing menace of corruption. And as expected — I might be wrong but my hunch is that Anna and his brigade would have still continued to protest even if the proposed anti-corruption law was completely unblemished — the so-called crusader against corruption has almost rejected the bill as toothless. Obviously, the UPA 2 honchos are terrified with the spectre of Lokpal having investigation powers. During a recent all-party meeting, Kashmir’s very own prodigal son spilled the beans: setting up a Lokpal could prove to be suicidal as it would soon be probing the origin of election funding? Remarks attributed to Farooq — ‘Why are you killing the golden goose’ — might have hugely embarrassed many of the participants at the meet. However, with his ludicrous forthrightness Farooq unveiled the revolting face of present Indian politics. Without black money it is not possible to win elections anymore is not mere insinuation, it is now widely accepted reality of Indian politics. In the age of skyrocketing election expenditures, hardly any politician in India is free of corrupt practices. Politicians ganging-up to subvert all efforts for an independent Lokpal, is understandable; it is a matter of survival for them.

Even the Communists, the leading lights of probity in public life, are busy decrying the urgency of having an effective anti-corruption mechanism: The Lokpal bill is being sought to be introduced in unusual haste. Moreover this shrill debate about the ‘sovereignty of parliament’ is meaningless. It is the people that make parliament sovereign. Gurudas Dasgupta’s appeal to the Congress and the government that ‘under no circumstances should the sovereignty of parliament be surrendered’ does not carry any conviction. If the system has failed to deliver justice and equality, the ruling class collectively has to blame itself for such a stark failure. If on the basis of brute majority, parliamentarians pass bad laws or continuously fail for four decades to enact an effective law to curb corruption, people are bound to lose patience.

It is very unfortunate that people’s anxiety owing to the failures of the politicians is being described as a threat to the parliament’s sovereignty. People in any case will like to uphold parliament’s supremacy; it is the bad behaviour of politicians that has brought disrepute to democracy. 

Similarly, Anna and his team have not only displayed a highly impatient but also acrimonious attitude. Since the bill has been only tabled and not passed yet, there is no justification for a fast now. Appropriate for Anna and his team was to wait till the end of the parliament debate. Unless the bill is passed what final shape it takes is a matter of speculation. Irrespective of the condemnation that politicians rightly deserve, that the bill presented even a half-measure is still a step forward. Why is Anna putting unnecessary pressure to cover every aspect in one go.

Ideally the bill, even with present flaws, should be allowed to be enacted. It is very much possible that with debate and subsequent amendments the anti-corruption law can be strengthened further bringing it up to the expectations. Apparently this haste indicates Anna’s lack of trust in the parliament. Actually, it’s a brazen attempt to remain relevant. The rabble rousers submitting to a process howsoever faulty automatically closes all options of the street agitation, in the immediate sense. 

I am not a movie buff; please forgive me if I remember Shah Rukh Khan in the TV promo of his film Don, wrongly. I heard something like ‘Taqat ek nasha hain.’ Undeniably power is intoxicating, whether for a hero or villain. Why should Anna renounce his newly acquired saintly status that he seems to enjoy to the hilt, which gives him all the power without any accountability?