After FDI, it's Lokpal Bill

Harish Gupta

With the Lokpal Bill set to be the centerpiece of public discourse, I think it is time to wonder why this creature keeps popping back like a squash ball. It is some half a century ago that the venerable Ashoke Kumar Sen, the then Congress law minister, moved the first Lokpal Bill. It failed to go through Parliament. In 1968, it was Shanti Bhushan who took his turn, but it got nixed in the Rajya Sabha. It was followed by a procession of similar last-stage abortions in 1971, 1977, 1985 (it was Ashoke Sen again, as law minister in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet), 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2008. Its transformation into a Civil Society movement since then, under the (contested) leadership of Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal or Baba Ramdev, the yoga instructor, does not dilute the doubts raised by its serial rejection by the legislators. And if lawmakers have considered it to be a bothersome intrusion, is the Civil Society justified in still demanding it with so much earnestness?

There is little doubt that the civil society's restlessness stems from the hopeless inadequacy of the state's existing anti-corruption institutions. The perception of corruption is as widespread as it is unsparing of those who should generally stay above suspicion, such as the judiciary. And the more the state has become transparent under popular pressure—with the Right to Information Act and the burgeoning statutory disclosure norms for public servants—the more is the public ire at what is visible and what is suspected. Further, those exposed by these disclosures have retaliated with a ruthless vengeance. Between January 2010 and October 2011, as many as 12 whistleblowers have been killed and 40 assaulted in connection with RTI requests. The state, in its failure to protect them, has further exposed itself to the doubt that it might be complicit in these acts of corruption. The public distrust of the government has spilled over to the legislature. This is the reason why "Team Anna" and other advocates of the so-called "Jan Lokpal Bill" have been insisting on having an ombudsman whose members are neither appointed by politicians nor bound by them in initiating anti-corruption investigation and even punishing offenders. What they want may be a product of righteous indignation but it is patently anarchist. The urge to make the society free from corruption is something that ought to be inherent to the State. When one hears talks about outsourcing the fight against corruption, all it points at is a rot at the heart of the State. 

The Lokpal Bill in its present form, though relieved from much of the naïvete of Team Anna's prescription, does not fully contain the anarchist strain implicit in a Robin Hood-style dispensation of justice. It is difficult to understand how an omnium-gatherum of unelected worthies, two-fifth of whom are to be selected on quota basis, will get the moral authority to investigate and try the Prime Minister of the land on all issues except, condescendingly, "international relations, external and internal security, public order and atomic energy". Since the Bill proposes to arm Lokpal with an inquiry wing, it will not be surprising if an Edgar Hoover (notorious ex-FBI chief) type super cop emerges at some point with a similar proneness to dig up dirt on heads of the government whom he does not like. President John F. Kennedy remarked on Hoover that he's "goddamned sewer". 

The UPA, having been buffeted by a two-year-long avalanche of corruption charges, largely orchestrated by the BJP and a section of the media, is now too keen to display a holier-than-thou readiness by introducing Lokpal in the statute. It is ignoring the long-term damage it may cause. Though India's is a cabinet-system government, not presidential as in the US, the Indian Prime Minister is the first among equals of the Cabinet and, therefore, cannot but enjoy substantial discretionary power. Allowing people to snoop around the PMO in the name of Lokpal can be dangerous. It can make the chief executive of the government think twice before taking every crucial decision. 

It can be nobody's argument that the government, including its head, must be without checks and balances. In fact, that is the purpose why the CBI was created six decades ago. It is the abysmal failure of CBI to do its job regardless of the scowl of politicians that has brought such assorted do-gooders like Anna Hazare and Kiran Bedi on the scene. In their trademark Jan Lokpal Bill, they wanted CBI to be put under Lokpal. Thankfully, the proposed Lokpal Bill has not allowed Lokpal to mess with CBI. But, instead of making the premier anti-corruption agency within the government free from political interference, it has only proposed the creation of a director of prosecution in the CBI, to be appointed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner. The director of prosecution must be a fearless officer selected after a close examination of his background and past records by a constitutional o Why can't CBI chief be approved by the Parliament if we are serious about its independence. The FBI could defy the President in the USA as its director must go through scrutiny and approval by Senate.