This article of Dr. Mehta, a piece against the wave, is also welcome and gives a food for thought of other side of coin. Though he has put some compelling argument but they seem to reflect cynicism and pessimism spread in this country that nothing can happen better and all the institution, made by whomsoever will have same fate of corruption and power concentration. This is right that this will be sub-version of democracy but when it can itself serve the purpose of the people, then this must be understood that something is seriously wrong with the system and it must be reformed. The reforms (Changes) happen in two ways, the First, gradual changes and the second is disruptive changes. Now it is time for disruptive changes.

He must realize that this article would have not come had not been any fast by any person of prominence like Anna Hazare. The least good thing about the fast is to showcase the value of integrity, belief of public on a person whose integrity is unquestionable. The reason for this is the failure of political institution of the country and it make a compelling case for political reform. Excesses and power concentration are always bad, and it is this excess of corruption of towering heights that some kind of changes are required, even if they happen to be constitutional changes.

In normal course, legislative should be left with the task of legislation, however, having been proven to be unable to legislate such anti-corruption law since last 40 years (8 government of full 5 years term to be precise), then question must be asked, when will such law come to existence? Do politicians have the political will and intention at all to bring that, if not then how can it come?

Another point of the article is, Will this act of Anna Hazare not set a precedent for coercion? I will humbly say that this is not just about a person, this is the situation where public coercing the government. Yes, the same public for whom democracy has been formed want a change and want to give a stern message to our political functionary that “Look, we have chosen you for 5 years, but don’t be extra smart, we can bring you down because it is we who have the power.”

As he make a case that Jan Lokpal is draconian. My question is what is that much draconian about the law which asks to bring all public offices to be accountable for what they do? Running a parallel legislature is not the motive but some means/ways must be there to make even highest authority accountable. That's what such law would do. Jan Lokpal never says and asks to make self -appointed people as the member of Jan Lokpal (as he is portraying) but it have clear and transparent procedure and public consultations to choose them! Now, in the country where even Media and journalist are making nexus, even Policy Analysts integrity and unbiased ness seem to be on stake!! And the best way to bring the confidence is to have the law even if it asks for constitutional reform! Our forefather and constitution makers wouldn't have imagines even in dreams that their successor would propagate corruption to this extent that their fight for freedom would cease to have a meaning for general public. And it is this unprecedented scale of corruption which demands changes and have caused in movement. And fortunately movements never come from just rationale thinking, they arise out of of heart and academics must introspect about their hearts. This is not just being jingoist; this is about reform and movement beyond the imaginable point of rationale thinking. IF Jan Lokpal is unconstitutional...let it be and let have reformed constitution which is contemporary to necessities. It is time for having disruptive changes in the system keeping in the mind of balance of Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and now Jan Lokpal.

__________________
Regards,
Sanjay Rai
A Small Sepoy
India Against Corruption