Book review: 'Lokpal: Facts And Arguments'

Book: Lokpal: Facts And Arguments
Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr
Har-Anand
134 Pages 
Rs295

As the idea for writing this book was suggested to the author by the publisher only in the last week of June this year and the book was out on the stands by the end of August, it was clearly written in a hurry. There are, therefore, many printer’s devils, grammatical errors and disjointed sentences which hamper the flow of reading.

Having said that, it’s a timely book on a hotly-debated subject, and clears a lot of misconceptions about both the government and Team Anna’s version of the proposed Lokpal Bill.

One of the commonest fears about team Anna’s Jan Lokpal Bill is that with its sweeping powers, the Lokpal itself could become a monstrous, corrupt genie impossible to tame. Well, the present draft does have a few provisions to prevent this. For one, once a case is closed, all documents related to it will be treated as public, and every month a list of such cases will be put on the website with reasons for closing the case. Further, all the material related to the case will be provided to anyone seeking it under the Right to Information Act. Second, the hearings before the Lokpal will be video recorded and available to anyone who pays for the copying costs.

However, there are still some details that could be tweaked to prevent the cure from becoming worse than the disease. For instance, for receiving and disposing of a complaint against a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court, the present draft of Anna’s bill states that the complaint will be first screened by a member of the Lokpal. What if this member is not above board? A genuine complaint may get stymied at the preliminary stage itself.

So, significant as Anna’s movement against corruption may be, a re-look at some of the clauses in his bill would improve it further, and in no way jeopardise his movement.

Rao presents various points of view in favour of and against both, the Jan Lokpal and the UPA government’s Lokpal bills; but in the final analysis he is against political lobbyists dictating terms. He promotes upholding the supremacy of Parliament because members of Parliament have the popular mandate. Theoretically, this view may be unarguable. But what is the reality?

Given that elections in this country are funded by dubious sources that rule out honest, paisa-less candidates from winning elections, and that a party without a majority vote can come to power by cobbling together smaller, diverse parties, does the majority ruling coalition represent a majority view? Secondly, and more importantly, when there are so many tainted MPs, when the attendance of MPs in Parliament is abysmally low, when scenes of hooliganism disrupt the working of the House, doesn’t the supremacy of Parliament come under attack? If lawmakers themselves are corrupt (Tihar jail is rapidly filling up with parliamentarians), harping on the supremacy of an abstract Parliament serves no purpose. Unusual situations call for unusual remedies, and that is why Anna’s methods of coercing elected representatives (who have been milking the coffers of the country with impunity for over six decades) to govern the country in a corruption-free, accountable manner are valid.

With both sides having arguments that need scrutiny, the need of the hour is for both of them to give up their pugilistic approach and sit down together to draw up a bill that takes into account not just the present corruption-ridden scenario but also incorporates stringent checks against a worst-case scenario of the Lokpal itself turning rotten.