LOKPAL MELODRAMA

Anna Hazare fast against corruption claiming to be following Gandhiji who never supported satyagraha in a republic INDIA

              The fierce battle between Government (UPA) and the Anna Hazare's team over whose version is more acceptable has been the hot topic of discussion among media, different NGO's, opposition parties, different sections of people these days. Everyone discussing the issue in what areas it helps or affects them, their sphere of social, economic and political life, if applicable.
               While the agitation over passing civil society's Lokpal bill is gaining support among people, certain sections have difference of opinions in the way he chose to stage his protests. First of all, a person claiming himself to be Gandhian should understand that, Satyagraha, Civil disobedience and other tactics that hinder normal life or pressurize governments are completely unacceptable and unconstitutional. It is completely unfair to take Gandhi's way of dealing with British as a precedent.

Whatever happened in the case of Gandhi, happened before Independence and against a government that is actually not elected legitimately and foreign. Implementing the same against a democratically elected government is unacceptable. And Gandhi, though initially believed in Satyagraha as a true and pure way to protest, changed his views eventually and when India became republic he accepted that making 'Satyagraha' legal and offering impunity to it, should not be accepted as a legitimate way to protest as it can create a political downfall, and that power if remained with the public, may lead to malicious results.
As many may have read in Hindu Editorial article regarding 'lokpal' dated 23-08-2011 and a Frontline article which states that Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, after drafting our constitution in 1949 has warned of 3 possible unwarranted outcomes of a democracy.

1. Socio-economic inequalities
2. Using unconstitutional methods
3. Hero worship

What I am talking about is the second point which states exactly that unconstitutional methods should not be used to protest. You can find it in detail in the sources stated above.
So, for time being let us set aside the way of their protest and look into what they actually want. The civil society members represented by Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan, Kiran Bedi and other prominent methods drafted a Lokpal bill, which they say, can curb corruption and promotes national growth. No one can object that fact.
When the talks began on Lokpal bill between government and Anna team, many points of the Anna team were actually accepted, though a few, which were assumed impractical, were left out. 

Let us start with the provisions that civil group insisted and rejected by government.

1. Inclusion of PMO and higher Judiciary in its ambit
2. Including crime wing of CBI under its jurisdiction
3. Mandating the supervising of all level government employees
4. Immunity or Independence, as they call it, from the government

So, all the clauses that were stated just now may seem reasonable. Now, lets discuss it one by one and both pros and cons

Inclusion of PMO and higher Judiciary in its ambit

Pros   

Everyone is equal before eyes of law. No exceptions should be there. If there are exceptions, then it is not a democracy. Moreover many countries which have a Anti corruption agency have their PM's under its ambit without any discrimination.
Recent events such as 2G scam, CWG scam, shows the involvement of PMO, however small it may be. In such cases, when it is mandated to prosecute the PM, CBI has to wait for a long time before getting a grant, even though under criminal law, there is no immunity to PM. That is why this new bill should have provisions which can launch a prosecution on a PM who is still in office. PMO is no exception to corrupt practices, as no one can ever say that all those in the PM's office are gentlemen.
So, we need PMO under Lokapal.

Cons

Making Lokpal supreme to PMO is not justified as PM is legitimately elected and experienced and has to be trusted upon. Government says, 'If you cannot trust PMO, how can we trust YOU?'. And that is a good question. Lokpal has to be answerable to some authority, in addition to people and that as anyone can guess, has to be, PMO. Getting PMO under it gives it political supremacy and that results in more corruption against reducing it. As the saying goes,'Too much power in too few hands is the root cause of corruption'. And hence, it is not advisable.

Including crime wing of CBI under its jurisdiction

Pros

Two independent organizations functioning for a single cause makes no sense, as it mandates heavier expenditure in terms of money and man power. So, CBI coming under Lokpal makes sense. That avoids the need to set up an investigation authority inclusive to Lokpal.

Cons

CBI has a different functioning style than that of proposed by Lokpal and changing that may need to be given another thought. Moreover, including CBI under lokpal, makes government devoid of its own crime related investigation team to rely upon. This may make Lokapal a dictator, which has to be avoided.

Mandating the supervising of all level government employees

Pros

Clearly, corruption will not happen at just a single level. It involves many people of different levels and thus for an effective investigation, all level employees has to be supervised by a single organization. Clearly, if CBI starts investigating on some issue in the grass root level and soon finds out that the issue involves higher authorities, cannot hand over the data to Lokpal, just like that, as however extensive the documentation may be, that cannot provide a clear view which is needed to go further.

Cons

Getting all sectors of employees under lokpal, only makes things worse as it crams all the investigations, generate unnecessary delays, giving the sheer size of government sector. Having only central and state level vigilance results in lack of  understanding of situations of corruption, as it is not always bad and sometimes can do good to the society too.

Immunity or Independence, as they call it, from the government

Pros

When there is immunity for an investigating agency, it could certainly do its job better as the people involved cannot threaten them. And many a times, as people involved are high level bureaucrats, they seem to avoid investigation by some unlawful means. And also having immunity or independence from government speeds up the investigation process as it avoids unnecessary delays.

Cons

If such an immunity is granted, it is a monarchy. If even government cannot stop it from doing certain things, which may be perilous in long run, then who can? Keeping Lokpal in such a critical place with so may powere is certainly inadvisable. If team Anna wants some such thing, it is very much advisable that they stand in the elections, prove their mettle, statistically prove their support and then face the ugly truth of politics staring at you all along, and you realise that, no single law can curb it. The whole system has to be restructured.

I will be posting a few other posts on Lokpal, based on news papers and magazine articles I read , soon.