A few years ago, during the UPA-1's initial years, a cabinet meeting was convened by Manmohan Singh, to discuss the introduction of Lokpal bill in the parliament(Few remember that Manmohan Singh and other like minded people did try hard to make lokpal a reality during UPA-1). Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav, after having exhausted all other ways of engineering obstacles to it, finally said "Do what ever you want to do" and walked out of the cabinet meeting, with a clear expression on face that he is not going to remain a mute spectator if the congress party try to go against his wishes. Ultimately the government abandoned the attempt due to coalition compulsions, besides lacking political will due to lack of immediate pressure on it to go with it. It was the day one could easily make out, how every politician(or so called representative) become, apathetic to the needs and aspirations of the people, once they get elected.
It is indeed true that corruption is one of the root causes of almost every malady that this country is facing. But, still our representatives showed little concern to it. It is a shame on Indian democracy that it took more than 40 years(the idea of a Lokpal to investigate higher public officials was first mooted by first Administrative Reforms Commission in late 1960s), to seriously make an effort to address the issue of corruption at higher public offices. Even now, if it is not the pressure from some apolitical organisations, it wouldn't have come this close to reality.
With this background, it is really heartening to have a look at the government draft of Lokpal bill. Though there are lot of deficiencies , it still is a bill that is unimaginable to think it will become a law, even an year ago. After all the embarrassment that the constitutionally independent institutions like Supreme court, Election commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, brought to politicians, I never expected politicians to be willing to create another independent institution whose chairman has powers equivalent to Chief justice of India and whose members equivalent to judges of supreme court, and has powers to strike at their very sources of survival(read as ill gotten wealth).
The Government's bill is weak in many respects. Especially it didn't have provisions to create similar institutions at state level. I don't know if this is a political strategy to muster enough support from regional parties to get the bill passed, or to leave it to state governments under the cover of some constitutional niceties. Corruption at state level is much more rampant than at central level. Small political parties and the opportunist politicians are using every opportunity, to amass as much wealth as possible, as soon as they get any close to position of influence. Also State level bureaucracy is much larger than central bureaucracy. Common man rarely comes in contact with central government, rather it is the state government where there are more avenues for corruption. Hence Lokpal's objectives will not be fulfilled without Lokayukta at state level.
The procedure of removal of members of Lokpal are also diluted compared to that of judges of supreme court. Although the committee that appoints Lokpal seems more balanced compared to that in Janlokpal bill, majority (6 out of 10) are still directly part of central government or are nominated by central government. Lack of more judicial members is clearly visible(only 3 judicial members). Also making the chairperson necessarily from supreme court, it is providing dangerous inducement to supreme court judges to act in favour of government so that they can secure a lokpal membership in future, as the govt is holding majority in selection committee. This will have serious repercussions on the functioning of Supreme court, one of the few institutions that still enjoys public confidence.
Another major issue lacking int the bill is related to whistle blower protection. The system, in many cases has become so much rotten that it is easy to corroborate with the corrupt individuals than to act against the corrupt, as part of their duty, for the public good. Hence it is very much necessary to reverse this trend, if we want more dynamic and vibrant public institutions. Whistle blower protection is very much essential in the context in which Lokpal goes after big fish who think they are above the law..
The maximum punishment is only 10 years. Corruption when it affects the livelihood and the very existence of millions of people, is nothing short of a crime against humanity. A person who amasses crores of rupees and curses millions to chronic poverty is very much waging war on the people of the country for his personal benefits. The maximum punishment needs to be enhanced to life imprisonment or capital punishment.
The bill has some interesting provisions, like making it mandatory for the public servants to declare their assets every year. But, it must have made it mandatory to make it public.
Also the Lokpal should be made designated authority under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 so that it can have powers to put suspected individuals under electronic surveillance. In today's world, the corruption, especially big ticket corruption is no longer a simple give and take affair. The unaccounted wealth is transferred to the beneficiary through a network of trusts, fictitious bank accounts, mis-invoicing and mis-pricing at multiple levels etc often across multiple countries, thus making it hard to trace the wealth to original beneficiary and prove it in a court of law. Hence it is necessary that Lokpal be empowered with every modern technology available to effectively perform its functions.
Most of the above mentioned corrections needed to Lokpal, are there in Janlokpal bill. But Janlokpal does have its own set of issues, often peculiar ones. The big issue is the very conception and philosophy behind it, in its complete distrust towards politicians, and in its envisioning of a gigantic bureaucratic organisation that is answerable to none but itself. For good or bad we chose, parliamentary democracy, which as it evolved from Magna Carta, puts a lot of faith on elected representatives and the executive. The duty of formulating laws and other major legislative functions, is essentially performed by the executive. Hence it is impossible to evolve a working model for democracy, within the confines of parliamentary democracy, without having faith in elected representatives. Also concentrating so much power in Lokpal will only give more incentive for politicians to subvert the institution. We may rather have multiple organisations with a little lesser power, than one single organisation enjoying such wide ranging powers. The inclusion of lower bureaucracy under it will only increase the burden. Corruption essentially starts at higher levels, then only it percolates down to lower levels. So if it is controlled at higher levels, it will automatically disappear at lower levels. In fact it looks like janlokpal envisages an institution that can work as a pseudo-god that can come and rescue a citizen whenever he/she face any problem. While the intention is good, it may not be easy to put in practice such a god-ly institution.
With all these deficiencies in janlokpal bill, I still support Anna Hazare's movement. For it made the politicians from the whole spectrum realise that they can no longer control the minds of the people for their narrow political goals. People showed them that they can not be taken for granted. In fact politicians are so much dumbstruck over the public outcry on such a usual thing as corruption(after all it is common, isn't it?), that nobody dare to speak about the undemocratic and blackmailing nature of Anna Hazare's fast. Those who say, that the fast is undemocratic should only need to realise the real status of democracy in India. India in reality is democratic only once in five years. After that one fateful day on which people have the opportunity to choose their so called representatives, it exists only on paper. Representatives elected once in five years, cannot claim to be the only people who can speak about and fight for people's issues.
After all, what united the people from all over the nation so much, other than wars with neighbours and terrorist attacks, if not movements like these, occurring whenever there is a looming crisis in Indian democracy.
May be Anna Hazare's fast and the public support to it and media enthusiasm is just about aspirations of a rising middle class, with its indifference to the plight of those facing the brunt of development at places far from cities. But, still India after Anna Hazare this year, will be better that what it was before it.
August 22, 2011
February 11, 2011
Posted from Windows phone
My first post from phone :-) . I am liking this app.
Due to a technical glitch, I didn't get my Driving Licence. Been to two RTA offices today. I never expected them to be so Cooperative. :-)
Posted from WordPress for Windows Phone
Due to a technical glitch, I didn't get my Driving Licence. Been to two RTA offices today. I never expected them to be so Cooperative. :-)
Posted from WordPress for Windows Phone
February 4, 2011
Popular Revolutions
"As a shepherd is of a nature superior to that of his flock, the shepherds of men, i.e., their rulers, are of a nature superior to that of the peoples under them. Thus, Philo tells us, the Emperor Caligula reasoned, concluding equally well either that kings were gods, or that men were beasts."
--The Social Contract
The story of revolutions is of profound significance in the historical narrative. The evolution of man started a million years ago. Man has adapted to changing surrounding unlike most other living organisms. He survived adverse climate changes. In his quest for survival, he gradually acquired capacity to outmatch the pace at which nature is changing. Indeed, the story of man is the most interesting story in the world. It is the same story which we study as history. In this story, there are moments, which defined the course of humanity in the subsequent times. These are the moments, when man has undergone far reaching changes. These changes more often were a necessity and were not voluntary. Some of these moments are the moments of revolution.
A revolution is a change which is perceptible, often spanning a time less than the average life span of a human being. Thus unlike slow changes like growth of settled agriculture, or cities, or modern democracy, the changes brought by revolutions can be perceived by a contemporary observer. That makes them special, since the changes are essentially brought about by contemporary society with due knowledge of consequences. Ideas form the basis of any revolution. As said by a great revolutionary, the sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting stone of ideas. Unlike slow changes, which are mostly caused by natural evolution, revolutions are brought about by people’s deliberate actions to change the way they face the nature. Things like invention of wheel, discovery of rice, invention of iron tipped plough, smelting of iron, printing press, first computer all are moments of revolution. Revolution is often the beginning of a change than the change itself.
The new type of revolution that is being observed in the last few centuries was the so called popular revolution, which is basically a sudden change in the way people organize themselves. For long the discourse on how people should organize themselves was monopolized by a few elite sections of the society. But, with the spread of literacy and education after the invention of printing press, when people started looking beyond their earlier confined boundaries, the magic and mysticism surrounding the kings and ruling classes disappeared.
A popular revolution always involves a conflict. A conflict between the old order and the new envisioned order. The beneficiaries of old order put up a fierce fight to preserve the status quo. They become part of what is called as a counter revolution. A popular revolution cannot succeed unless the people who are part of it have an alternative vision for organizing the society. Without an alternative vision, if the struggle is for just restoring a more justified version of the old order or for meeting few immediate grievances of its participants, the revolution will easily get crushed by the spectre of counter revolution. Also important is an organization to lead the revolution, to sustain the revolution in its infant stages and to spread the ideas among vast number of people who desire change but are not yet ready to accept it. The people leading the counter revolution exhibit astonishing unity when trying to suppress the revolution. It is the organizations like that of Jacobins, sans culottes, that made the French revolution possible. Even the way of organizing a revolution has to be new. It has to be unforeseen to the existing ruling elite. It is because of this new way of organizing a revolution that the peasant revolution in China in the mid 20th century succeeded. One cannot imitate a revolution, for the force of counter revolution can easily suppress known phenomena. It was the new model army that defeated the English king and not the traditional army.
The advent of modern democracy had in a way made the popular revolution rare. At the same time it is the democracy which legitimized that change is not only natural but also necessary in any society. Democracies have an amazing accommodative power. This removes the possibilities of a sudden change. The changes always happen over a period of time, at such a slow pace that they no longer symbolize a revolution. It is the democracy because of which, most of the western European countries never become truly socialist nations even though there was every reason for them to be so during the first half of the 20th century. In a representative democracy the balance between political liberty and economic equality is always in favor of the former, but is never so distorted that there is a possibility of a major upheaval and then a revolution. A democratic system no matter how corrupt it is, may never give rise to so much instability in the society so that a new order that is more justified can replace the old order. The present form of representative democracy is designed to kill the revolutionary enthusiasm. The democracy always creates an atmosphere that most people feel that a little change in the existing system is enough to attain a more just society. More importantly it makes the majority of people feel that it is the best possible solution for a just society. Another important aspect of democracy is that it always evolves. What were the fallacies of democracy a 10 years ago are not the same of today's democracy. A, representative Democracy, though at a very slow pace, always tries to correct its defects. So, to expose the fallacies of a democracy one had to think ahead of his/her time and the reasoning has to evolve at a much faster speed than the speed at which democracy tries to correct itself. Otherwise, it just becomes an exercise of raising serious problem with the system, only to be found that the problem had disappeared in an year and which makes it hard to convince the people.
So, it takes lot of effort to overthrow a democracy than a dictatorship. Our Maoist friends can never succeed in overthrowing the Indian state with techniques which are mere imitations of what happened elsewhere. Moreover a popular revolution has to be popular; they cannot expect to conquer Delhi with the help of few discontented individuals living in the forest whose vision of a better society is limited to what was existing since centuries or what has failed elsewhere. If they want to succeed they have to invent new ways of organizing the Revolution. Armed struggle is counterproductive in an accommodative democracy. Independent Indian state had amazingly managed to suppress all the armed struggles against it with increasing precision and popularity among the masses. If they want to succeed they have to reach out to the newly emerging classes of the society who are not part of the elite in the society and can feel the unjust nature of this system and also have time to think and dream of a better society. If they do so, change, in this corrupt system is inevitable.
--The Social Contract
The story of revolutions is of profound significance in the historical narrative. The evolution of man started a million years ago. Man has adapted to changing surrounding unlike most other living organisms. He survived adverse climate changes. In his quest for survival, he gradually acquired capacity to outmatch the pace at which nature is changing. Indeed, the story of man is the most interesting story in the world. It is the same story which we study as history. In this story, there are moments, which defined the course of humanity in the subsequent times. These are the moments, when man has undergone far reaching changes. These changes more often were a necessity and were not voluntary. Some of these moments are the moments of revolution.
A revolution is a change which is perceptible, often spanning a time less than the average life span of a human being. Thus unlike slow changes like growth of settled agriculture, or cities, or modern democracy, the changes brought by revolutions can be perceived by a contemporary observer. That makes them special, since the changes are essentially brought about by contemporary society with due knowledge of consequences. Ideas form the basis of any revolution. As said by a great revolutionary, the sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting stone of ideas. Unlike slow changes, which are mostly caused by natural evolution, revolutions are brought about by people’s deliberate actions to change the way they face the nature. Things like invention of wheel, discovery of rice, invention of iron tipped plough, smelting of iron, printing press, first computer all are moments of revolution. Revolution is often the beginning of a change than the change itself.
The new type of revolution that is being observed in the last few centuries was the so called popular revolution, which is basically a sudden change in the way people organize themselves. For long the discourse on how people should organize themselves was monopolized by a few elite sections of the society. But, with the spread of literacy and education after the invention of printing press, when people started looking beyond their earlier confined boundaries, the magic and mysticism surrounding the kings and ruling classes disappeared.
A popular revolution always involves a conflict. A conflict between the old order and the new envisioned order. The beneficiaries of old order put up a fierce fight to preserve the status quo. They become part of what is called as a counter revolution. A popular revolution cannot succeed unless the people who are part of it have an alternative vision for organizing the society. Without an alternative vision, if the struggle is for just restoring a more justified version of the old order or for meeting few immediate grievances of its participants, the revolution will easily get crushed by the spectre of counter revolution. Also important is an organization to lead the revolution, to sustain the revolution in its infant stages and to spread the ideas among vast number of people who desire change but are not yet ready to accept it. The people leading the counter revolution exhibit astonishing unity when trying to suppress the revolution. It is the organizations like that of Jacobins, sans culottes, that made the French revolution possible. Even the way of organizing a revolution has to be new. It has to be unforeseen to the existing ruling elite. It is because of this new way of organizing a revolution that the peasant revolution in China in the mid 20th century succeeded. One cannot imitate a revolution, for the force of counter revolution can easily suppress known phenomena. It was the new model army that defeated the English king and not the traditional army.
The advent of modern democracy had in a way made the popular revolution rare. At the same time it is the democracy which legitimized that change is not only natural but also necessary in any society. Democracies have an amazing accommodative power. This removes the possibilities of a sudden change. The changes always happen over a period of time, at such a slow pace that they no longer symbolize a revolution. It is the democracy because of which, most of the western European countries never become truly socialist nations even though there was every reason for them to be so during the first half of the 20th century. In a representative democracy the balance between political liberty and economic equality is always in favor of the former, but is never so distorted that there is a possibility of a major upheaval and then a revolution. A democratic system no matter how corrupt it is, may never give rise to so much instability in the society so that a new order that is more justified can replace the old order. The present form of representative democracy is designed to kill the revolutionary enthusiasm. The democracy always creates an atmosphere that most people feel that a little change in the existing system is enough to attain a more just society. More importantly it makes the majority of people feel that it is the best possible solution for a just society. Another important aspect of democracy is that it always evolves. What were the fallacies of democracy a 10 years ago are not the same of today's democracy. A, representative Democracy, though at a very slow pace, always tries to correct its defects. So, to expose the fallacies of a democracy one had to think ahead of his/her time and the reasoning has to evolve at a much faster speed than the speed at which democracy tries to correct itself. Otherwise, it just becomes an exercise of raising serious problem with the system, only to be found that the problem had disappeared in an year and which makes it hard to convince the people.
So, it takes lot of effort to overthrow a democracy than a dictatorship. Our Maoist friends can never succeed in overthrowing the Indian state with techniques which are mere imitations of what happened elsewhere. Moreover a popular revolution has to be popular; they cannot expect to conquer Delhi with the help of few discontented individuals living in the forest whose vision of a better society is limited to what was existing since centuries or what has failed elsewhere. If they want to succeed they have to invent new ways of organizing the Revolution. Armed struggle is counterproductive in an accommodative democracy. Independent Indian state had amazingly managed to suppress all the armed struggles against it with increasing precision and popularity among the masses. If they want to succeed they have to reach out to the newly emerging classes of the society who are not part of the elite in the society and can feel the unjust nature of this system and also have time to think and dream of a better society. If they do so, change, in this corrupt system is inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)