Hazare’s Fast And Its Aftermath

Anna Hazare broke his 97 hour-fast at Jantar Mandar, New Delhi on Saturday, April 9, 2011 after he was handed over a copy of the gazette notification constituting a ten-member committee consisting of five Ministers of the Union Government and five representatives of the civil society including Anna Hazare himself. The government, which was initially somewhat adamant in its attitude, was compelled to come to terms with all the demands of Anna Hazare, in view of the unprecedented support he received not only in Delhi but all over the country.

Anna uncannily chose the right moment. There was pent up anger in the minds of the people which was steadily built up as scams of huge proportion burst one after another—the 2G spectrum scam, Commonwealth Games scam, Aadarsh Society scam, in which high level politicians, civil servants and military officers were found to be involved with the government looking the other way failing to take swift and decisive action, and moving only under the direction of the Supreme Court. The chief investi-gating agency, the CBI, was found to be working under government directions and a top civil servant involved in corruption cases was brazenly appointed to a high post whose incumbent was duty-bound to take action against those involved in corruption.

Public confidence in the willingness and ability of the government to act against corruption was shaken and India came to be known as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Hence the widespread support to Anna Hazare in which young people, including professionals, participated in large numbers. Hazare, not much known outside Maharashtra, became overnight a national hero. He was hailed as the Gandhi of our time, though Hazare modestly refused to accept any such description. Although his demand was limited to a specific issue, namely, the passing the Lokpal Bill on the lines proposed by the civil society activists, it was construed by people as a war against corruption. They had hardly any detailed knowledge about the government draft of the Bill and the Bill prepared by the civil society. The civil society dubbed the Lokpal, as envisaged in the government draft, as ‘toothless’, while some others, including those in government, felt that the Lokpal Bill of the civil society was ‘draconian’.

The government was caught in a precarious situation. Elections to the State Assemblies in West Bengal, Aasam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu were in the offing and it could hardly afford the shadow of corruption to fall on the results of these elections. Nor could the Prime Minister and President of the Congress party be pinned down to dealing with the fast when they had to be campaigning in the elections. They sent Kapil Sibal to act as an intermediary—the same Kapil Sibal who had publicly stated that there was no loss to the government in the 2G spectrum case and had run down the CAG in no uncertain terms. Sibal’s talks with Anna’s representatives were successful. The government agreed to a joint committee with five Ministers of the government and five members of the civil society constituting a committee to hammer out a formulation of the Bill acceptable to both.

The main Opposition party, the BJP, had supported Anna’s fast though they had earlier asked for an all-party committee to look into the matter which the government had failed to do. On the other hand, the spokesmen of the SP and RJD denounced Anna’s demands as an affront to Parliament and its privilage to enact legislations. They also threatened to block the passing of the Bill when it would come up before Parliament. Tariq Anwar, on behalf of the NCP, condemned Anna’s fast as ‘fascist’ after he named Pawar, that party’s head, as a corrupt politician. Others called it a blackmail. Anna’s supporters barred politicians to come anywhere near him when he sat for the fast and roughly treated Chautala, the former Chief Minister of Haryana, and Uma Bharati, the former Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, when they came to express their solidarity. Some of the people who flocked at Jantar Mantar shouted that all the 543 MPs were ‘chors’.

Anna took a statesman-like posture at the moment of his triumph when the government accepted his demands. He thanked the same person—whom he had called ‘remote control’—for acceding to his demands. He described the government’s acceptance of his demands not as his victory but the victory of the nation. He also reminded his admirers that this was but the first step in the fight against corruption. Many other steps needed to be taken such as electoral reforms, the right to negative voting and the right to recall a corrupt representative.

•

BUT, as expected, the peace between Anna and his supporters and the government did not last long. The very Minster who mediated, Kapil Sibal, publicly stated that Lokpal can hardly be of any help when a poor citizen wants his child to be admitted to a school or is keen to get medical attention in a hospital. He will go to a politician, not to the Lokpal. This angered Anna who asked him to resign from the committee if he had no faith in the Lokpal. The conflict between the two became more ominous when Anna publicly applauded Narendra Modi and Nitish Kumar, both NDA Chief Ministers, for providing good governments free of corruption. The Congress representative asked whether Anna had forgotten the communal carnage in Gujarat in 2002. Anna replied that he was only talking about the corruption cases. Modi warned Anna that the Congress was not likely to forget this certificate to Modi and would soon try to vilify him.

In the civil society itself there was no unanimity. As soon as the composition of the committee was announced, Baba Ramdev denounced it as ‘vanshwad’ because the father- son duo, Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan, were both members. He wanted Kiran Bedi to be a member. Bedi, however, said that the persons they had selected were most knowledgeable. After Anna’s advice (or admonition) Baba Ramdev took back his objection. A less vocal but more eloquent response was from Aruna Roy, a member of the NAC and chairperson of its committee on the same subject, who felt that some of the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill needed to be reconsidered.

Members of the civil society team publicly declared their assets. The fact came out that Shanti Bhushan is a billionaire and his son Prashant a ‘crorepati’. Moreover a CD came out exposing talks between Shanti Bhushan and Amar Singh which were embarrassing. Shanti Bhushan filed an FIR against an unknown person! All this does not go well with the moralistic postures of the civil society.

Anna has kept his sword hanging over the head of the government. He has given the deadline dates June 30, by which time the Bill should be finalised, and August 15, by which the Bill should be passed. Having regard to the inevitable time taken for the procedure of passing the Bill both by the Lok Sabha and Rjya Sabha, the firm dates are unlikely to be observed. Anna has already threatened that if the dates are not adhered to he would lead a procession with the national flag on his shoulders in the nation’s Capital for immediate compliance. Later he backtracked! With his confidence grown many folds after the nationwide support and publicity to his agitation, Anna seems to feel that he can bend government to his will. He has demanded that the proceedings of the 10-member committee should be open to the public by video recording and display. The government spokesman has immediately rejected the proposal agreeing only to audio recording.

Many intellectuals and mediapersons in their columns and editorials have expressed serious reservations about Anna’s scant regard for democracy and its legislative institutions. When asked why he was not standing for elections, Anna said he would lose his deposit because he could not spend money for distribution amongst the voters in the shape of sarees for women and bottles for drinkers, whose awareness was very little. This, said his critics, showed his contempt for the ordinary voters.

This brings to a head the issue of represen-tative government versus participatory govern-ment. We make a mockery of democracy when, once elections are won, representatives hardly care for the voters, make a fortune for themselves and their families, display an aura of arrogance of power, readily pass bills to raise their salaries and perquisites, misuse power, indulge in mal-practices, pay scant attention to the work of legislation, and even hold Parliament or the State legislature to ransom and not allow it to function. As an accumulated result of all this, people seem to have lost confidence in the legislative institutions. Hence the demand for ‘participative democracy’ in which in between two elections, the people have at their disposal the means and power to hold the representatives accountable. The ‘right to recall’ is one such power but how this right can be exercised is yet to be worked out. It is sad to see that the standard of our legislatures has progressively deteriorated and people have lost regard for them. The political parties too have become ‘election machineries’ rather than concerned with the problems of the people. The persons they set up as candidates have to be winnable’, their qualities of mind and heart have little relevance. Once elected, candidates too concentrate on money-making by using their influence. Many amongst the elected representatives have been criminals despite the directions of the Election Commission and Supreme Court that ‘candidates should declare their assets and criminal records at the time of filing nominations’. Dynastic or hereditary politics has become another worri-some feature. The country is run by 400 wealthy and powerful families, it is said.

Anna’s statement that 90 per cent of problems of corruption can be solved with the appointment of the Lokpal seems to be highly optimistic. The roots of corruption lie in our political, adminis-trative and economic systems as well as in the psyche of our people. We have already drawn attention to some of the features of our political system which breed corruption—specially the huge expenditure on elections. Our administrative system is subordinate to our political system. Even the seniormost public official can be manipulated by the political power through various devices including transfers. Anna Hazare launched a campaign against abrupt transfers and compelled the Government of Maharashtra to provide minimum security of tenure. Officials must work according to law and rules without fear or favour though they must always be positive and helpful in dealing with the people. To bring this about there should be insulation of the administration from the political system. Officials must be protected from interference by politicians. The role of politicians is to pass laws and lay down policies and programmes no doubt with the help of civil servants, but once the law and policy are laid down the civil servants should be able to carry out their duties without political interference. The Police Commission suggested reforms on law including the power of appointment by an independent commission and not the political bosses. This should apply to civil service as a whole as well.

As regards the economic system, the policy of neo-liberalism has let loose an avalanche of greed and rapaciousness for amassing wealth by fair means or foul, as illustrated by the Shahid Balwa and Hasan Ali cases as also the Neera Radia tapes. The corporates who supported Anna’s campaign should realise that business deals are themselves a big source of corruption. The Bollywood stars, including Amitabh Bachchan, who supported Anna Hazare, do not stop to pause for a moment to reflect on the source of money which support their astronomical earnings. The same applies to cricket stars. The uncons-cionable earnings in the luxury sector encourage corruption in the public system as well.

Some people who cry hoarse against corruption themselves want to break the law or engage in illegal practices and are prepared to pay illegal gratification to civil servants for illegal favours. Meanwhile NGOs, who get huge funds from abroad, should also be brought under the scope of the Lokpal.

•

WOULD the Lokpal and his machinery be able to tackle the gargantuan corruption in our society? The draft suggested by the civil society activists tries to make the case for a strong Lokpal. The main issues which will arise when the two drafts would have to be reconciled would be: (1) How would the Lokpal be appointed? (2) What will be the scope of his activity? (3) What would be the machinery at his disposal?

(a) Selection and appointment—The civil society activists want a panel of public figures including Nobel Prize winners and Magasaysay Prize winners and Bharat Ratnas to make the appoint-ment. This would hardly be an acceptable propo-sition. But a committee of political leaders, judges—serving or retired—of the higher judiciary, retired and serving civil servants at senior levels., educationists and social workers would be more acceptable.

(b) The scope of activity—Activists insist that complaints should be directly received by the Lokpal without being filtered through legislative and executive authorities.

(c) Lokpal should cover politicians as well as senior civil servants and judges. So far as inclusion of civil servants is concerned, there should be no objection. Indeed it would be desirable because scams often take place through collaboration between politicians and their hand- picked civil servants. It would mean that the office of the CVC would be merged with the office of the Lokpal. But controversial would be the inclusion of judges as they are beyond the ambit of the machinery of the government. Corruption in judiciary should be dealt with by an independent judicial commission. The inclusion of the Prime Minister within the ambit of the Lokpal is likely to be a contentious proposition.

(d) The corruption wing of the CBI should be under the Lokpal. The Lokpal should also have at his disposal legal help to prosecute. The Lokpal Bill has been pending for 42 years. All previous attempts to get the Bill passed—in 1968, 1971, 1975, 1986, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001—failed and the Bills lapsed. It is the inexcusable dilatoriness which gave credence to the allegation that politicians are deliberately avoiding the constitution of the Lokpal Authority.

We can only hope that Hazare’s fast would lead to a positive outcome in the near future. The first meeting of the joint committee was held on April 16. Sibal and Kejriwal gave different versions of what transpired. The next meeting is on May 2. We would be anxiously looking at what happens in future meetings and what the outcome would be.

Formerly Secretary to the Government of India and Vice-Chancellor of Goa University, Dr Dubhashi is currently the Chairman, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Pune Kendra. His e-mail is dubhashi@giaspn01. vsnl.net.in