LokPal?? Oh, whats the fun!?

@ Ramesh.
This was first posted here. Pls chk the dates. Then got to know, that I posted into a wrong classified "Announcements and events", Anyways i found your comments valuable and educative there, thought You'd be interested in the discussion going on here. Nevertheless, Welcome.

@Bhargavi, I have not questioned your motive / right to post multiple threads. Just wondered why it was visible with same content at two places, that's all. No offense.
I liked reading your posts though, and thought it fit to respond with my views. I respect others' views, whether I agree or disagree with them, and expect the same from others. The idea is to respond to the message, not target the messenger. Few privileges in a democracy, I guess.... ;-)

Look forward to reading more posts from you. Good luck !

Dear Ramesh Iyer,

I agree with many of your statements:

"Such scams and mega-scams as CWG, 2G, and what-not "G" are coming to light due to the 24X7 news and media exposure."

"Coming back to the issue of corruption, I feel there is no point merely throwing mud at the politicians, who are after all one of us, and duly elected by majority of us. Never mind if the supposedly educated huge middle-class by-and-large abstains from voting, preferring to take the family out for a break."

"Criminalization of politics has ensured that no do-gooder with less-than-enviable bank balance can stand and win elections. In fact, such noble souls end up losing even their deposits. So much for cleaning the system..."

And your points 1. to 5.

And I disagree with quite a few of your statements too (with my responses in bold), like:

"I shall not comment on M.K. Gandhi and his contribution to the country...and shall save it for another day.". I'll also reserve my answers for the same day, if per chance, I happen to read your comments.

"However, the neo-gandhism which we are witnessing of late, with the emergence of people like Anna Hazare, may well be short-lived."
I believe you're wrong, and fervently hope too that you're wrong.

"With Baba Ramdev also having resorted to Anna Hazare's unpatented style of protest - of fast-unto-death - this mode may soon lose its importance and sting."
I believe imitations will lose their shine, not the original.

"I wish Anna Hazare, with all his good intentions, hadn't embarked on this crusade with such a flawed alternative to the Lokpal Bill drafted by the govt."
If we'd let go of this opportunity, we may have had to suffer even more, longer. Since the situation was reaching a flash point, it was just waiting for someone to step in and do something about it. I'm glad no less a person (than a simple Anna) took the place; had it been someone much less, she/ he may have spoiled the opportunity.

"On the face of it, it appears that certain people who have been wanting to push the Jan Lokpal Bill have been using Mr. Hazare's clean image and long record of public service to further their own hidden agenda... I can't say the same about his new-found coterie and clingers-on."
This is the most damning part of your post. Pray tell us, what could be the hidden agenda of the inner circle members of Anna (like Justice Hegde, Kiran Bedi or Arvind Kejriwal)? We shouldn't sling mud on good, honorable public-spirited people. In my view, each of these persons is as good, noble and honourable as Anna, only less charismatic and with less media-acceptable-image. I can understand that they don't pass your test, since M.K. Gandhi himself didn't. (I mean no offence to you or your views.)

Persons like the Bhushans do not belong to the inner circle, and are in the panel on a special purpose, and the other members are smart enough not to allow the Bhushans to misuse the forum. (To be fair to the Bhushans, I'm not implying that they are dishonest and want to misuse the forum; I really don't know enough about them to comment.)

"Instead, it would have been wise of Mr. Hazare to start his crusade against corruption by seeking proper implementation of the dozens of laws we already have to fight this menace."
This is a fallacy. The suggested proposition can't become a rallying point for people, whereas Jan Lokpal Bill has proved to be. This is NOT the only or main raison d'etrefor supporting Jan Lokpal Bill, but this has played an important role as well. Even as you have a cause, you need an idea, a slogan, that people can relate to. This is one. And a perfect one.

"You only need to read the draft of the Jan Lokpal Bill (I believe the 26th draft is the latest !!) to know why it will fail, or in my humble opinion won't even see the light of the day in its current avatar."
What's the basis of this statement? Are too many drafts indication of how bad it is, or how op[en minded the drafters are?

"Sure, I sound cynical, but that's because I believe that systemic and sustainable change should always come from within the system, not without. The answer to failed legislation is not more legislation."
What is the basis of this profound statement? If this were true, we need to just maintain the "status quo" always. Not a good sign of a good, vibrant democracy. There's another word for "changes brought about from within": "in-breeding"; not a positive word, is it? And I dread to think of us, the people, as those "outside the system", though I agree we've been reduced to just that. Should we remain so, esp. when our system has reached the lowest ebb?

"Hence, let the change start from the grass-roots and it will transform India into an enviable nation one day."
Macro political, social, economic and business changes always start from the top, never from the bottom. We could do experiments/ models at the grassroot levels, but the goal is to replicate the model in as many places as possible.

Is it at all practically possible to make all people good, honest and non-corrupt voluntarily? Remove the police and you'll know. How many people can you show me, who has been absolutely honest, and flawless?

Like you rightly said, "I feel there is no point merely throwing mud at the politicians, who are after all one of us...". In their positions, most of us would behave exactly the same way. So, they are not the villains, but the system that takes them to their positions. Once there, surely, they want to hold to what they have got.

With the right systems in place, if the risk of corrupt practice is made much higher than the returns, the politicians will start behaving. And only those who have no interest in corruption but only public service will come to politics, bureaucracy, judiciary, etc.

It is NOT by making us honest that we could solve the problems, but by creating an environment that won't permit corruption.

Are you saying that that is the way to cleanse our politics? How many 1000's of years do we have to wait for that to happen? Fish rots from its head. Yata Raja (pun incidental), tata Praja. The world over, in all the places where corruption has been minimized, you'll see that effort started from the top.
Thanks,

Ganesan.

Dear Ganesan,

To keep the post short, have edited some parts of it. Please note my clarifs below your comments as stated below....

And your points 1. to 5.

And I disagree with quite a few of your statements too (with my responses in bold), like:

RI - No comments on Gandhi as of now.

"However, the neo-gandhism which we are witnessing of late, with the emergence of people like Anna Hazare, may well be short-lived."
I believe you're wrong, and fervently hope too that you're wrong.
RI - Only time will tell how effective this edition of Anna Hazare's fast was !!

"With Baba Ramdev also having resorted to Anna Hazare's unpatented style of protest - of fast-unto-death - this mode may soon lose its importance and sting." I believe imitations will lose their shine, not the original.
RI - Talking of imitations, Satyagraha wasn't AH's original concept either, as it was popularized by Gandhiji.

"I wish Anna Hazare, with all his good intentions, hadn't embarked on this crusade with such a flawed alternative to the Lokpal Bill drafted by the govt."
If we'd let go of this opportunity, we may have had to suffer even more, longer. Since the situation was reaching a flash point, it was just waiting for someone to step in and do something about it. I'm glad no less a person (than a simple Anna) took the place; had it been someone much less, she/ he may have spoiled the opportunity.
RI - I believe had Annaji and his aides protested about misuse of CBI, CVC, etc. and insisted on making them autonomous (by making them a/c'table only to the Parliament), and insisted on stricter implementation of Prevention of Corruption Act, (can seek inclusion of PM, Ministers, HC & SC Judges, etc.) it would have been more practical, and govt would have been pressured by the Opposition as well on this front. Seeking a new Constitutional Institution, when several already exist, will only add another layer of bureaucracy to the whole setup, and possibly get weighed down by the humongous system over time. Disciplining a govt is like disciplining one's child. If a child doesn't behave well, a parent wouldn't bear another to fulfill their wishes (though some do !!) and ignore the first born. Doing so will only lead to a dysfunctional family, sooner or later. And what if the 2nd child too fails.......just a thought !!

"On the face of it, it appears that certain people who have been wanting to push the Jan Lokpal Bill have been using Mr. Hazare's clean image and long record of public service to further their own hidden agenda... I can't say the same about his new-found coterie and clingers-on."
This is the most damning part of your post. Pray tell us, what could be the hidden agenda of the inner circle members of Anna (like Justice Hegde, Kiran Bedi or Arvind Kejriwal)? We shouldn't sling mud on good, honorable public-spirited people. In my view, each of these persons is as good, noble and honourable as Anna, only less charismatic and with less media-
acceptable-image. I can understand that they don't pass your test, since M.K. Gandhi himself didn't. (I mean no offence to you or your views.)
RI - I didn't get too specific as I felt readers would realize what I was hinting at. Anyway, I was referring to the Bhushans, and to an extent to Arvind Kejriwal - who just couldn't answer various loopholes in the Jan Lokpal Bill in a
recent interview on TV. Though I have high regard for Justice Hegde and Ms. Bedi, I am surprised the JLB has such bizarre and undemocratic provisions (pls read the draft, and various other articles on the web criticizing certain provisions, as there are too many to state here).

Persons like the Bhushans do not belong to the inner circle, and are in the panel on a special purpose, and the other members are smart enough not to allow the Bhushans to misuse the forum. (To be fair to the Bhushans, I'm not implying that they are dishonest and want to misuse the forum; I really don't know enough about them to comment.)
RI - Bhushans have always been an integral part of this campaign and were always being projected as members of the joint committee with govt nominees. From print media reports, they would love to continue on the
panel to select the Lokpal as well. Moreover, I feel they may / may not have indulged in illegal acts (including getting large portions of land at throw-away prices in UP) but seem hypocritical, having enjoyed favours and privileges from govt on several occassions. In my opinion, someone who is morally tarnished can't be in a position to judge others.

"Instead, it would have been wise of Mr. Hazare to start his crusade against corruption by seeking proper implementation of the dozens of laws we already have to fight this menace." This is a fallacy. The suggested proposition can't become a rallying point for people, whereas Jan Lokpal Bill has proved to be. This is NOT the only or main raison d'etre for supporting Jan Lokpal Bill, but this has played an important role as well.
Even as you have a cause, you need an idea, a slogan, that people can relate to. This is one. And a perfect one.
RI - I disagree. Pls refer to the JLB and the website which is the face of the Anna Hazare's campaign. They haven't mentioned about any existing legislation or institution which could be fine-tuned to meet their objective of corruption-free govt. So, it implies that the whole AH crusade has a single-point agenda of getting the Lokpal Bill passed (and possibly some of the self-appointed civil society reps being on the panel).

"You only need to read the draft of the Jan Lokpal Bill (I believe the 26th draft is the latest !!) to know why it will fail, or in my humble opinion won't even see the light of the day in its current avatar." What's the basis of this statement? Are too many drafts indication of how bad it is, or how open minded the drafters are?
RI - Nope. I only stated the latest one, which too has continued with the strange provisions, which reflects poorly on eminent jurists like Justice Hegde, and the Bhushans.

"Sure, I sound cynical, but that's because I believe that systemic and sustainable change should always come from within the system, not without. The answer to failed legislation is not more legislation."
What is the basis of this profound statement? If this were true, we need to just maintain the "status quo" always. Not a good sign of a good, vibrant democracy. There's another word for "changes brought about from within": "in-breeding"; not a positive word, is it? And I dread to think of us, the people, as those "outside the system", though I agree we've been reduced to just that. Should we remain so, esp. when our system has reached the lowest ebb?
RI - Again you have misunderstood me. What I meant was that people should ensure public servants perform their duties honestly and sincerely, What's needed is to make them do what they are supposed to do, not have a parallel system.
By all means, civil society can protest wrong-doings by govt servants, but taking up the role of our elected representatives is a dangerous trend in a democracy. Who chose these civil society reps to represent the masses ? Imagine someone like Mayawati or Mamta Banerjee (or say Bal Thackeray) start "civil society" movements and get their way with the govt. Is that how democracy functions ? Why have elected reps if you can't have faith in them.

"Hence, let the change start from the grass-roots and it will transform India into an enviable nation one day."
Macro political, social, economic and business changes always start from the top, never from the bottom. We could do experiments/ models at the grassroot levels, but the goal is to replicate the model in as many places as possible.
RI - Change may be effected from the top (as in our freedom movement in 1947), but radical changes always, come from lower levels. The 'Jasmine revolution' in Tunisia and Egypt recently is another example.

Is it at all practically possible to make all people good, honest and non-corrupt voluntarily? Remove the police and you'll know. How many people can you show me, who has been absolutely honest, and flawless?
RI - Well, the police, like our politicians are part of our society. You can't just wish away any part of society. We should make them be true to their service to the country, by rewards or punishment. Nowadays, there is no rule of law, as there is no fear of punishment. The rich and powerful manage to bribe / influence officials which can stop only if the officer is protected from harassment or vindictiveness. US is a good example where the Constitution separates the Administration from the Executive, ensuring every public servant exercises his / her official duties without fear or favour. Even the President of US has to seek the support of Congress (their Parliament) to pass bills, make crucial appointments confirmed, etc. We don't have such checks and balances as our Constitution has too much faith and bestowed too much power with politicians.

Like you rightly said, "I feel there is no point merely throwing mud at the politicians, who are after all one of us...". In their positions, most of us would behave exactly the same way. So, they are not the villains, but the system that takes them to their positions. Once there, surely, they want to hold to what they have got.
RI - Cross your heart and say how many of your neighbours are honest - govt servants or otherwise. You'll get the answer.

RI - My thinking is, no system can work without factoring in human psychology. Human beings, in general will do what gives them pleasure, and avoid what gives them pain. Hence, unless corruption is made strictly punishable (perhaps death sentence in rare cases, like Baba Ramdev proposes wouldn't be a bad idea), and being dishonest is made to have painful consequences, no social / legal system will ever succeed.

Thanks,

Ganesan