Getting past our colonial past - By C. Raja Mohan, The Indian Express, Mumbai | Comments by Ghulam Muhammed

 

Comments posted on Indian Express website over C. Raja Mohan article: Getting past our colonial past:

It is regrettable that a seasoned Journalist sometime has to follow the editorial time-line and guideline without proper application of mind as to why India should celebrate British colonial government on India, when India is no longer the slave country that British Crown had treated it all along in their 200 year interruption of Indian history.

An article in THE HINDU celebrates Gate of India, Bombay with which 3 prominent names are mentioned. Viceroy Earl of Reading, Governor Sydenham and donor David Sasson --- all Jews that even in the last century were ruling India in the name of British Crown.

Isn't it time for aware Journalists to warn Indian people about the dangers of British Jewry once again poised to take over India, in one shape or another. This is a time to learn from history of colonial serfdom and let people aware of International conspiracies against India rather than lament the neglect of  our colonial past.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

---------------

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/getting-past-our-colonial-past/886589/0

Getting past our colonial past

C. Raja Mohan

Tags : c raja mohan, columnist indian express, indian express oped, Getting past our colonial past Posted: Mon Dec 12 2011, 03:20 hrs

India’s ambivalence about celebrating the founding of its capital, New Delhi, by the British Raj a hundred years ago today underlines the pathetic hypocrisy of our political class, which feeds off the empire’s legacy but is unwilling to acknowledge it.
Consider in contrast the Chinese Communist Party, which by nature, is hostile to inconvenient history. Yet, the CCP is more comfortable coping with its colonial past than the Indian National Congress that runs the Central and state governments in Delhi today.

If you ever visit Shanghai, do step into the basement of Pudong’s Pearl Tower, which hosts the city’s Municipal History Museum. It covers the period between 1843, when the Shanghai port was opened and 1949, when the Communist Revolution triumphed. This is precisely the era that the CCP routinely denounces as the “century of humiliation” for China at the hands of imperial powers.

But the CCP has no hesitation in recognising the emergence of modern Shanghai in this period and recalling it. One section of the municipal history museum recreates the vibrant atmosphere of colonial Shanghai’s streets and markets. Visiting the Pearl Tower a few years ago, I could not but marvel at the decision to put a a life-size sculpture of a Chinese man pulling a rickshaw with a white memsahib in it. In another corner, Rabindranath Tagore is in conversation with the great Chinese poet Lu Xun in a coffee shop.

The British Raj is part of our history and modern India can’t simply disown it. Unlike the petty posturing of Delhi’s current rulers, the founding fathers of the Republic were more pragmatic in dealing with the legacy of the Raj. Recall Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s decision to join the British Commonwealth immediately after winning independence from the Crown.

Even as they deny the imperial legacy, modern India’s rulers rely on institutions that can’t shake off the DNA of the British Raj. All the essential security structures of modern India — the armed forces, the police, the general administrative services, and the diplomatic corps — can trace their roots to the East India Company that made Calcutta the first capital of British India.

The history of our Foreign Office, for example, dates back to 1783, when the Secret and Political Department was formed by the East India Company to deal with the sensitive political communication with the various kingdoms within the subcontinent and on its periphery. The Secret and Political Department was run by the “Persian secretary” (all inter-state communications in the subcontinent were then in Persian), the oldest predecessor to the current “foreign secretary”.

Beyond the institutions, the influence of the Raj endures in the nature of India’s foreign and security policies. Our political discourse pretends that India’s foreign policy was divined on August 15, 1947 and refuses to acknowledge the pre-Independence sources of our contemporary external engagement.

The geographic imperative is by far the most enduring influence on the foreign policy of a nation. And modern India’s political geography is indeed a legacy of the Raj. India’s territoriality, constructed under the Raj and partitioned as the imperial power left, remain powerful influences on modern India’s world-view.
While imperial London was surely an important driver of Indian foreign policy under the Raj, so were the security and political imperatives that were rooted solely in the subcontinent’s location. The Raj was indeed part of the British empire, but the evolution of its foreign policy was not always dictated by London.

It is politically incorrect for the foreign policy establishment to acknowledge that many of its current mantras were invented by the British Raj. But our smaller neighbours in the subcontinent, and China, have no problem seeing through this. Consider for example, India’s insistence that outside powers should not interfere in the internal and inter-national affairs of South Asia. That is an undiluted inheritance from the Raj, which declared an exclusive sphere of influence around the subcontinent and strove hard to prevent the other colonial powers from encroaching on its space.
Equally enduring has been the notion in Delhi that India’s security interests are not confined to its borders but extend from “the Suez to the South China Sea”. Independent India did not have the power of the Raj to enforce this doctrine, but never gave up the objective.

A third legacy of the Raj has been independent India’s vigorous contribution to international peacekeeping under the flag of the United Nations. This is rooted in the “military surplus” that the Raj had created in the subcontinent. Despite the many persistent military conflicts that Delhi had to endure — especially with Beijing and Islamabad — independent India had enough military resources to spare for collective security ventures at the global level.

A rising India will find that her emerging foreign policy priorities are not entirely different from those of the Raj, when King George V announced the shifting of the imperial capital at the Delhi Durbar held on December 12, 1911. These include securing access to raw materials outside the subcontinent, promoting free trade and opening markets, pacifying India’s periphery, limiting the role of hostile greater powers in our extended neighbourhood, offering protection to small states, use of force beyond borders to maintain regional peace and guarding the sea lines of communication in the Indian Ocean.

Modern India can achieve these tasks only if it recalls the legacy of the Raj, accepts it as an integral part of our history, and above all, is willing to learn from it.


The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi

Why our media is anti-people - Press freedom must be examined - By Justice Markandey Katju - INDIAN EXPRESS, Mumbai, INDIA

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Why-our-media-is-anti-people/870441/0

Why our media is anti-people

Markandey Katju

 

Tags : markandey katju, columnist indian express, indian express oped, Why our media is anti-people

Posted: Fri Nov 04 2011, 00:24 hrs

To understand the role which the media should be playing in India we have to first understand the historical context. India is presently passing through a transitional period in its history: a transition from a feudal agricultural society to a modern industrial society. This is a very painful and agonising period. The old feudal society is being uprooted and torn apart; but the new, modern, industrial society has not yet been entirely established. Old values are crumbling, everything is in turmoil. Recollect Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “Fair is foul and foul is fair” — what was regarded good earlier, for example the caste system, is regarded bad today (at least by the enlightened section of society), and what was regarded bad earlier, such as marriage for love, is acceptable today (at least to the modern-minded).
It is the duty of all patriotic people, including the media, to help our society get over this transition period quickly and with less pain. The media has a very important role to play in this transition period, as it deals with ideas, not commodities. So by its very nature the media cannot be like an ordinary business.

Historically, the print media emerged in Europe as an organ of the people against feudal oppression. At that time the established organs were all in the hands of despotic feudal authorities. Hence, the people had to create new organs which could represent them. That is why the print media became known as the “fourth estate.” In Europe and America it represented the voice of the future, as contrasted to the established feudal organs, which wanted to preserve the status quo. The media thus played an important role in transforming feudal Europe to modern Europe.

In my opinion the Indian media should be playing a role similar to the progressive role played by the media in Europe during its transitional period. This it can do by attacking backward, feudal ideas and practices — casteism, communalism and superstition — while promoting modern scientific and rational ideas. But is it doing so?

In my opinion, a large section of the Indian media (particularly the electronic media) does not serve the interest of the people; in fact, some of it is positively anti-people. There are three major defects in the Indian media which I would like to highlight.

First, the media often diverts the attention of the people from the real issues to non-issues.
The real issues in India are socio-economic — the terrible poverty in which 80 per cent of our people live, inflation, the lack of medical care, education and backward social practices like honour-killing, caste oppression and religious fundamentalism. Instead of devoting most of its coverage to these issues, the media focuses on non-issues — like film stars and their lives, fashion parades, pop music, disco dancing, astrology, cricket, reality shows and so on.

There can be no objection to the media providing entertainment to the people, provided this is not overdone. But if 90 per cent of its coverage is related to entertainment, and only 10 per cent to the real issues mentioned above, then something is seriously wrong. Its sense of proportion has gone crazy. Entertainment may get as much as nine times the coverage that health, education , labour, agriculture and environment together get. Does a hungry or unemployed man want entertainment — or food and a job?

To give an example, I switched on the TV recently, and what did I see? Lady Gaga has come to India; Kareena Kapoor standing next to her statue in Madame Tussauds; a tourism award being given to a business house; Formula One racing, etc, etc. What has all this to do with the problems of the people?

Many channels show cricket day in and day out. The Roman emperors used to say: “If you cannot give the people bread, give them circuses.” This is precisely the approach of the Indian establishment, duly supported by our media. Keep the people involved in cricket, so that they forget their social and economic plight. What is important is not poverty or unemployment, what is important is whether India has beaten New Zealand (or better still Pakistan), or whether Tendulkar or Yuvraj Singh have scored a century.

Recently, The Hindu published that a quarter of a million farmers committed suicide in the last 15 years. The Lakme Fashion Week was covered by 512 accredited journalists. In that fashion week, women were wearing cotton garments, while the men and women who grew that cotton were killing themselves an hour’s flight from Nagpur. Nobody told that story, except one or two journalists locally.

In Europe, displaced peasants got jobs in the factories created by the Industrial Revolution. In India, on the other hand, industrial jobs are now hard to come by. Many mills have closed down and have become real estate. The job trend in manufacturing has seen a sharp decline over the last 15 years. For instance, TISCO employed 85,000 workers in 1991 in its steel plant, which then manufactured 1 million tonnes of steel. In 2005, it manufactured 5 million tonnes — but with only 44,000 workers. In the mid ’90s, Bajaj was producing a million two-wheelers with 24,000 workers. By 2004, it was producing 2.4 million units, with 10,500 workers.

Where then do these millions of displaced peasants go? They go to cities — where they become domestic servants, street hawkers, or even criminals. It is estimated that there are one to two lakh adolescent girls from Jharkhand working as maids in Delhi. Prostitution is rampant in all cities, due to abject poverty.

All this is largely ignored by our media, which turns a Nelson’s eye to the harsh economic realities facing up to 80 per cent of our people, instead concentrating on some glamorous Potemkin villages.

Second, the media often divides the people. Whenever a bomb blast takes place anywhere in India, within a few hours TV channels start saying an e-mail or SMS has been received from Indian Mujahideen or Jaish-e-Muhammad or Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islam claiming responsibility. The name will always be a Muslim name. Now an e-mail or SMS can be sent by any mischievous person who wants communal hatred. Why should they be shown on TV screens, and next day in print? The subtle message being sent by showing this is that all Muslims are terrorists or bomb-throwers.

About 92 to 93 per cent of the people living in India today are descendants of immigrants. Thus, there is tremendous diversity in India: so many religions, castes, languages, ethnic groups. It is absolutely essential that if we wish to keep united and prosper, there must be tolerance and equal respect to all communities. Those who sow the seeds of discord among our people, whether on religious or caste or linguistic or regional lines, are really enemies of our people.

The senders of such e-mails and SMS messages are therefore enemies of India, who wish to sow the seeds of discord among us on religious lines. Why should the media, wittingly or unwittingly, become abettors of this national crime?




The writer, a former judge of the Supreme Court, is chairman of the Press Council
 
PART TWO

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/press-freedom-must-be-examined/870993/0

Press freedom must be examined

Markandey Katju

Tags : markandey katju, columnist, indian express, indian express oped, Press freedom must be examined

Posted: Sat Nov 05 2011, 00:00 hrs

As I have already mentioned, in this transitional age, the media should help our people move forward into the modern, scientific age. For this purpose the media should propagate rational and scientific ideas, but instead of doing so, a large section of our media propagates superstitions of various kinds.
It is true that the intellectual level of the vast majority of Indians is very low — they are steeped in casteism, communalism and superstition. The question, however, is: Should the media try to lift up the intellectual level of our people by propagating rational and scientific ideas, or should it should go down to that low level and seek to perpetuate it?

In Europe, during the Age of Enlightenment, the media (which was only the print medium at that time) sought to uplift the mental level of the people and change their mindset by propagating ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity and rational thinking. Voltaire attacked superstition and Dickens criticised the horrible conditions in jails, schools, orphanages, courts etc. Should not our media be doing the same?
 

At one time, courageous people like Raja Ram Mohun Roy wrote against sati, child marriage and the purdah system in his newspapers Miratul Akhbar and Sambad Kaumudi. Nikhil Chakravartty wrote about the horrors of the Bengal Famine of 1943. Munshi Premchand and Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay wrote against feudal practices and women’s oppression. Saadat Hasan Manto wrote about the horrors of Partition.
But what do we see in the media today?

Many TV channels show astrology-based programmes. Astrology is not to be confused with astronomy. While astronomy is a science, astrology is pure superstition and humbug. Even a little common sense can tell us that there is no rational connection between the movements of the stars and planets, and whether a person will die at the age of 50 or 80, or whether he will be a doctor or engineer or lawyer. No doubt most people in our country believe in astrology, but that is because their mental level is very low. The media should try to bring up that level, rather than to descend to it and perpetuate it.

Many channels mention and show the place where a Hindu god was born, where he lived, etc. Is this is not spreading superstition?

I am not saying that there are no good journalists at all in the media. There are many excellent journalists. P. Sainath is one such, whose name should be written in letters of gold in the history of Indian journalism. Had it not been for his highlighting of farmers’ suicides in certain states, the story (which was suppressed for several years) may never have been told. But such good journalists are the exceptions. The majority consists of people who do not seem to have the desire to serve the public interest.

To remedy this defect in the media, I have done two things. First, I propose to have regular meetings with the media (including the electronic media) every two months or so. These will not be regular meetings of the entire Press Council, but informal get-togethers where we will discuss issues relating to the media and try to resolve them in a democratic way, that is, by discussion, consultation and dialogue. I believe 90 per cent of the problems can be resolved in this way. Second, in extreme cases, where a section of the media proves incorrigible despite trying the democratic method mentioned above, harsher measures may be required. In this connection, I have written to the prime minister requesting him to amend the Press Council Act by bringing the electronic media also under the purview of the Press Council (which may be renamed the Media Council) and by giving it more teeth — for example, the power to suspend government advertisements or in extreme cases, even the licence of the media houses for some time. As Goswami Tulsidas said: “Bin bhaya hot na preet.” This, however, will be resorted to only in extreme cases and after the democratic method has failed.

It may be objected that this is interfering with the freedom of the media. There is no freedom which is absolute. All freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions, and are also coupled with responsibilities. In a democracy everyone is accountable to the people, and so is the media.

To sum up: The Indian media must now introspect and develop a sense of responsibility and maturity. That does not mean that it cannot be reformed. My belief is that 80 per cent of those who are doing the wrong thing can be made good people by patient persuasion, pointing out their errors and gently leading them to the honourable path which the print media in Europe in the Age of Enlightenment was following.

(Concluded)

The writer is a former Supreme Court judge and [current] Chairman of the Press Council of India

Don’t call this blackmail - By Shazia Ilmi - The Indian Express

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/dont-call-this-blackmail/805450/0

Sat, 18 Jun 2011

Don’t call this blackmail

Many crucial bills have been written with activist's inputs. Why discredit Anna's efforts?
Shazia Ilmi
Tags : shazia ilmi, columnist indian express, indian express oped, Don’t call this blackmail

Posted: Sat Jun 18 2011, 03:52 hrs

There is a rather uncivil campaign afoot to discredit the role of “civil society” in co-authoring the Lokpal bill draft. While some serious commentators and members of the NAC have pointed out reasonable doubts and genuine misgivings, the bulk of the criticism has been centred on a series of platitudes and banalities based on the supposed “lack of legitimacy” of the civil society members themselves.


When Anna Hazare reminds everyone that the people are sovereign, the argument thrown back is that this “unelected tyrant” is taking on the democratically-elected representatives of the people. This deliberate attempt to use the very essence of democracy against itself is disturbing.


If being elected or not elected is the question, then one must remember that our prime minister lost the only election he fought, that some Union ministers have lost more elections than they have won — some having won only one election and some none at all — and that most of the members of the Planning Commission and now the NAC are unelected. Some of the biggest players in Indian politics hail from the Rajya Sabha. I’m sure Anna Hazare, Santosh Hegde and Prashant Bhushan could match the lofty credentials of at least some of the esteemed members of the upper house — and, if RS members can deliberate over the prospects and processes of a bill journey’s into enactment, why can’t civil society members participate pro-actively in the process?

Another oft repeated argument is that elections are a great leveller. Yet look at people’s choices: between Mulayam Singh and Mayawati in UP, Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, Madhu Koda and Shibu Soren in Jharkhand. People don’t really experience more honest governance. And while the financially compromised B.S. Yeddyurappa government of Karnataka and that of morally compromised Narendra Modi in Gujarat can quote electoral numbers to cite their political legitimacy, it is the pressure of some citizen groups that prevent them from claiming universal acceptance and “moral legitimacy”. Those who challenge the moral authority of civil society members must be warned that the same question can be asked of them, when they question an Amit Shah or a Madhu Koda.

Money, sycophancy, nepotism and self-serving interests have choked all pathways of our electoral processes, from tickets to portfolio allocation. Then why, pray, should we citizens outsource our right to ask questions and seek answers to our elected leaders?

One puerile argument being bandied about is that the government should not have hobnobbed with non-state actors from the outset. If so, how will this or any other government explain why they ever had any dialogue with Syed Ali Shah Geelani? Why did Rajiv Gandhi sign the Assam Accord with the agitating All Assam Students Union in 1985, for it was only after the accord was signed that their members formed the Asom Gana Parishad and blended into the electoral canvas? Why did the Indian government engage with Laldenga in 1986 when he had fought a secessionist war against the state?

I wonder what those who castigate Anna Hazare and his ilk as hunger-striking blackmailers would call Potti Sreeramulu, who fasted for Andhra Pradesh’s statehood in 1952. He died on March 16; the news spread like wildfire and created a mass uproar. On December 19 that year, Jawaharlal Nehru announced the formation of a separate Andhra state.

If peaceful assembly and street agitation in order to express outrage or discontent against any existing practice or system is termed as blackmailing the government, then we might as well cease to call ourselves a democracy. Team Anna might have demonstrated a novel approach to pre-legislative debate and drafting but the fact of the matter is that all bills presented in Parliament are made with the national and state level consultation by government officers of civil society groups, NGOs and stakeholders.

The much-delayed Womens Reservation bill was backed by more than 35 women’s organisations which put pressure on parliamentarians to pass it in the Rajya Sabha. Aruna Roy, Sandeep Pandey and Arvind Kejriwal gave up brilliant and profitable careers not to get elected, but to lead campaigns for the RTI and the NREGA. Academic and activist Madhu Kishwar has helped formulate state policy for rickshaw-pullers, street vendors and hawkers, and says people’s movements are an inherent part of democracy and serve to strenghthen it.

The government can either dampen the prospects of this nation by presenting a watered-down version of the Lokpal bill in the monsoon session, or be on the right side of history forever by taking credit for it, in what would be the watershed moment for the world’s largest democracy, and its biggest battle so far.


The writer is an independent mediaperson and is associated with the Anna Hazare-led ‘India Against Corruption’

We, the thieving people - By Shekhar Gupta - The Indian Express | Comments by Ghulam Muhammed

Comments posted on Indian Express website over Shekhar Gupta’s article: We the thieving people:

India of today resembles a Middle Eastern or African city, where there is absolute breakdown of law and order and people are going about looting entire nation. Only a blanket curfew and shoot to kill order will restore some semblance of sanity. Those who feel that Indian governance can be reformed by resorting to the democratic niceties in the times of such emergencies, are deluding themselves and the nation.

In fact, those who think Anna Hazare should be seen merely as a reformer out to curb corruption only, are oblivious of the worth and potential of his intervention that could bring in a people's revolution, to usher in a second Free India. Today's Indian government can be compared with the worst that British Colonialists could impose on a colonized India. India is now colonized by a greedy, immoral oligarchy that will not relinquish its stranglehold unless people like Anna Hazare, following in Gandhian footsteps, call for a Second Freedom Movement. 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-the-thieving-people/780109/0

We, the thieving people

Shekhar Gupta Tags : shekhar gupta, columnist indian express, We, the thieving people Posted: Sat Apr 23 2011, 01:24 hrs

Some questions can have only one answer. For example, is corruption a bloody awful thing? Are you sick and tired and outraged by recent scandals? Shouldn’t the perpetrators of all these be thrown into jail? Is the process of catching such thieves in high positions too slow, too compromised and, actually, a joke? Does India need to set up a new, effective mechanism to not only catch and convict the corrupt but also to strike terror in the hearts of all those who may have felt tempted to steal? If the Jan Lokpal bill, drafted by well-meaning, sincere members of the civil society, provides that legal framework, should it be passed forthwith? The answer to all these will be a resounding, unanimous “YES”. No question. No argument.

Now, let’s pose some more questions: have you read the text of the proposed bill? The honest answer is most of you have not. Nor had I, until late last week. So here are some follow-up questions: in that fight against corruption are you willing to reshuffle the great constitutional arrangement of checks and balances, separation of powers and responsibilities within our institutions, Parliament, executive and the judiciary? Will you create an institution that’s a cop-cum-prosecutor-cum-inquisitor-cum-judge at the same time, in a “na appeal, na vakil, na daleel” (the expression made famous during the Emergency) kind of arrangement? Do you want an institution that will override the judiciary and Parliament, have the magisterial powers of search and seizure and, as time passes, will pretty much appoint its own successors and be answerable to none, particularly as even the judges of the Supreme Court will quake in their robes before they hear complaints against the Lokpal as it would also have the powers to investigate complaints against them (there is a concession however: such investigations will not be carried out on behalf of the Lokpal by a police officer below the rank of a superintendent of police)? Finally, are you willing to appoint a General Musharraf in mufti to sort out all that bedevils India today? I can presume the answer to all these will be generally no, though there will be some quibbles over the interpretation of this and that. But please do read the text of the bill (available at www.indiaagainstcorruption.org) as we go on.


The Musharraf reference is brought in with great care. He tried to create a perfect system with a “democracy” that was “guided” by him, and his corps commanders, obviously men with “unimpeachable integrity” (a term you will read often in the Lokpal bill draft) and certainly unquestionable patriotism. It worked well for nine years, until he willy nilly got caught in putting his control over his judiciary to the test of public opinion and a Pakistan, even under military rule, revolted. It is tough to see how India, old or new, would ever accept so dictatorial an arrangement. The Musharraf reference is also tempting because the standard answer from this group of civil society leaders to the question if their bill violates the basic spirit of the Constitution is, so what, the Constitution can be amended as it has been so many times. But the kind, and number of Constitutional amendments this draft will require, will need a Musharraf. Remember how he unveiled his new constitution at a press conference, and carried out 36 amendments on the spot, on the suggestions of journalists who, I presume, fitted his definition of members of civil society.
Read along this draft with me. First of all, the composition of the 10-member Lokpal and its chief. Four will have to be former senior lawyers or judges, and no more than two former civil servants. Where will the rest come from? Your guess is as good as mine. All of these will have to be people of “unimpeachable integrity” and also “should have demonstrated their resolve to fight corruption in the past.” From where will you find these people, particularly as you are working on the presumption that a large number of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts do not pass that test of unimpeachable integrity. And who will choose them? A committee headed by the prime minister who, in turn, will be under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal he chooses. But, wait, it is more complicated than that. This committee shall include the two youngest judges of our high courts and Supreme Court respectively, the presumption being that the young are cleaner (Clause 6, 5 c and d). But, if a Lokpal has to be fired for misdemeanour, the case will be heard by a bench consisting of the five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court? Confused? Why are the youngest virtuous while hiring, and the seniormost equally so while firing?


The first time, this selection committee will set up a search committee of 10, of which five shall be former CAGs and CECs but only if there has never been a “substantive” allegation of corruption against them, nor do they have any “strong” political affiliations. Who is to sit in judgment over such subjective criteria? But wait. This committee of five will then choose five members from the civil society. How civil society is defined we do not know, but in fairness, you should presume we journalists will not be among them. If this is not sounding impossible already, this search committee has to recommend at least “three times the names as there are vacancies” (Clause 6, 10 f). So if you thought it is hard enough to find so many perfect men and women, you now know that you have to find thrice as many. And, of course, when the selection committee’s choice is finally forwarded to the president, she “shall” sign it within a month. This would make the Congress party blush, in particular, as the last time the president of the Republic was treated so peremptorily was during the Emergency. Remember Abu Abraham’s immortal cartoon in this paper, showing Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed in his bathtub, handing out a signed ordinance through an ajar door, and saying, if there are more ordinances, can they wait till I finish?


If the bill tells the president what she “shall” do, it similarly directs the Supreme Court, five seniormost of whose judges will hear any complaints against the Lokpal and “shall not dismiss such petitions in liminae.” And, of course, should they decide that the Lokpal is guilty, they will write to the president who “shall” fire him within a month.


If the idea of this bill is to take away all discretion, and strike terror in the hearts of the bad guys, it does that very effectively.


Except, so many of the rest, generally innocent Indians, may live in that terror as well. The bill, for example, entitles the Lokpal to collect 10 per cent of all the fines collected, stolen wealth recovered, or even national wealth saved from being stolen, in its own corpus for its own use, thereby creating extortionist incentive: the more you value, the more you collect. Read on further. If you report on another citizen and he is caught and convicted, you would similarly earn 10 per cent of the money recovered, and/ or the money saved from being swindled as your reward. We will, therefore, be incentivised by law to become a nation of cops and spies, sneaking on neighbours and family for pecuniary gain. Such things happen in North Korea and if it is your argument that its people are happier than us Indians, we will need some convincing. Of course, this may see so many Indians in jail that real estate companies, maybe even DB Realty and Unitech, may find it profitable to diversify into building new prisons all over the country. Further, almost all Lokpal proceedings, from selection committee meetings to trials, will be videorecorded and copies will be available for a fee. This will be a great stimulus for the video industry and if you had any spare cash you had better buy some Moserbaer stock.


The bill plays nicely on the current sab chor hain mood. So if a company is found to benefit from a corrupt practice, five times the loss it is supposed to have caused the public (it could have been 5 x 1.76 lakh crore in case of the telecom scam) will be recovered by auctioning not just its assets, but also the personal assets of its directors. You can go on, the Lokpal members will be deemed police officers, have the powers of seizure and search without going to a magistrate — precisely the question with Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act) — have protection of contempt of court law, will function as civil courts, be investigators and prosecutors, throwing out the very principle of separation of powers, checks and balances (Clauses 8-19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 32).


As we saw in the first five questions raised, and answered in the affirmative in this article, there is no doubt that all Indians are now desperately angry with corruption. But is the way to fight it to totally subvert our constitutional arrangement and create an institution with absolute, unchallenged and draconian powers? Or install a Kim Il Sung with his politburo? This bill, in this form, is designed to match the dictum of “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It also presumes all Indians are thieves, unless proven otherwise, and can only be governed in a police state. Further, that a society of a billion-plus thieves can be cleansed by barely a dozen individuals armed with the most undemocratic law drafted in a democracy outside its Parliament. That is why this needs greater, cooler discussion. Medha Patkar is right in saying that the antecedents of the civil society committee members are not the most important thing and that there should, instead, be a vigorous debate on all aspects of this bill. That is what we are trying to initiate in this paper.


A word about the response of the political class so far. The Congress has been panicking because of its own well-earned and deserved guilty conscience as so many scams have happened under its watch. The BJP touchingly believes this is its second Ganesh-drinking-milk moment that will help bring it back to power. But it does not see the contradiction of backing Santosh Hegde against the Congress in Delhi and Yeddyurappa against him in Bangalore. A strong, effective institutional framework to prevent and punish corruption is an idea whose time has come. This draft bill, unfortunately, is like losing your way before starting that journey. 

sg@expressindia.com