The events after the presentation of the 'Jan Lok Pal Bill' draft by 'Team Anna' has unfolded on expected lines. The Government's softened Bill, defending its politico-constitutional position on the inclusion of Prime Minister and the Judiciary under the scanner of a proposed Lok Pal, followed by protests by Anna Hazare, his decision to stage an indefinite fast and his anticipated arrests have helped to keep the media focus on the larger issue of corruption as none other has done outside of the Bofors and 2-G scams for the present generation of Indians.
The question remains: Where do we go from here? For the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the Congress' has been the lone voice on the Lok Pal Bill. Partners like the DMK and the Trinamool Congress have supported the demand for including the Prime Minister's office, for instance, under the purview of the Lok Pal. Otherwise, they have refused to be drawn into the daily quota of media hype attending on what could well turn out to be a 'non-issue' after a time, unless there is consistency in the civil society reaction and commitment on the part of political parties that are opposed to the Government's stand.
There is a reason for it. The political Opposition, particularly the mainline BJP, which has delineated the proposal for a Lok Pal from Anna Hazare's right to protest and profess his views on the subject - and his consequent arrest - are yet to make their position clear on the proposed legislation. Even the UPA allies who want the Lok Pal to cover the Prime Minister's office have not indicated their willingness to argue for the cause, both within the Government and Parliament - and take it to the logical conclusion, if it came to that. In the absence of such a commitment from political parties on the specifics on the proposed legislation, the 'Team Anna' agitation itself is slowly becoming an issue about the rights of the individual to protest for what he thinks is right vis a vis the duty of the Government to maintain law and order.
It is likely that when the issue is flagged before the judiciary, the Government could be expected to take the line that Anna's fast could have led to a law and order situation, first in the national capital, and later elsewhere across the country. The media coverage of protests elsewhere would be used to argue this point. Yet, the fact remains that many of the protestors were aged and had taken to the streets for a cause that has become dear to every heart of every Indian citizen, almost since Independence. The presence of a substantial number of youth should instill an endearing hope about the nation's future, yet the fact also remains that they could become the foil for arguing the case about a possible law and order situation.
Going beyond all this remains the question if Parliament should legislate, or people should do so, particularly if they have at their disposal a mechanism to reach out to the people at large and are able to convert public opinion in their favour, without being able to measure the latter in quantifiable terms in relation to the population as a whole? Or, should they be looking at issues as the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary under the constitutional scheme and larger democratic processes are empowered to do, and work within the system as the system understands it? It is easy to say that the system is rotten and we need to make changes - but that is a dangerous suggestion, being made without thinking about the larger and later-day consequences.
It is one thing for Anna Hazare, or Baba Ramdev, or a Jayaprakash Narayan in his time, to propose and protest in favour of changes to the system. JP however sought a change in the mindset of the rulers and voters alike, and did not take on constitutional institutions. If anything, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi cited his call to the armed forces not to follow 'illegal orders' from the Government to justify the proclamation of the Emergency. Ironically, there are more leaders in the political Opposition in the country than in the ruling Congress Party - which was at the helm during the Emergency days - who have had a taste of that dark era. For Team Anna to keep them out would mean that they are strategising for the right cause but in a wrong way.
The suggestion of the likes of R R Diwakar and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru for Gandhiji to involve the masses in the freedom movement may not have any relevance now. Yet, the fact remains that the strategy of involving the masses in movements of the kind need to be studied closely if they have to be taken to the logical end - in the absence of which in the early days, the Mahathma himself could not succeed wholly, but had to end some abruptly.
The events after the presentation of the 'Jan Lok Pal Bill' draft by 'Team Anna' has unfolded on expected lines. The Government's softened Bill, defending its politico-constitutional position on the inclusion of Prime Minister and the Judiciary under the scanner of a proposed Lok Pal, followed by protests by Anna Hazare, his decision to stage an indefinite fast and his anticipated arrests have helped to keep the media focus on the larger issue of corruption as none other has done outside of the Bofors and 2-G scams for the present generation of Indians.
The question remains: Where do we go from here? For the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the Congress' has been the lone voice on the Lok Pal Bill. Partners like the DMK and the Trinamool Congress have supported the demand for including the Prime Minister's office, for instance, under the purview of the Lok Pal. Otherwise, they have refused to be drawn into the daily quota of media hype attending on what could well turn out to be a 'non-issue' after a time, unless there is consistency in the civil society reaction and commitment on the part of political parties that are opposed to the Government's stand.
There is a reason for it. The political Opposition, particularly the mainline BJP, which has delineated the proposal for a Lok Pal from Anna Hazare's right to protest and profess his views on the subject - and his consequent arrest - are yet to make their position clear on the proposed legislation. Even the UPA allies who want the Lok Pal to cover the Prime Minister's office have not indicated their willingness to argue for the cause, both within the Government and Parliament - and take it to the logical conclusion, if it came to that. In the absence of such a commitment from political parties on the specifics on the proposed legislation, the 'Team Anna' agitation itself is slowly becoming an issue about the rights of the individual to protest for what he thinks is right vis a vis the duty of the Government to maintain law and order.
It is likely that when the issue is flagged before the judiciary, the Government could be expected to take the line that Anna's fast could have led to a law and order situation, first in the national capital, and later elsewhere across the country. The media coverage of protests elsewhere would be used to argue this point. Yet, the fact remains that many of the protestors were aged and had taken to the streets for a cause that has become dear to every heart of every Indian citizen, almost since Independence. The presence of a substantial number of youth should instill an endearing hope about the nation's future, yet the fact also remains that they could become the foil for arguing the case about a possible law and order situation.
Going beyond all this remains the question if Parliament should legislate, or people should do so, particularly if they have at their disposal a mechanism to reach out to the people at large and are able to convert public opinion in their favour, without being able to measure the latter in quantifiable terms in relation to the population as a whole? Or, should they be looking at issues as the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary under the constitutional scheme and larger democratic processes are empowered to do, and work within the system as the system understands it? It is easy to say that the system is rotten and we need to make changes - but that is a dangerous suggestion, being made without thinking about the larger and later-day consequences.
It is one thing for Anna Hazare, or Baba Ramdev, or a Jayaprakash Narayan in his time, to propose and protest in favour of changes to the system. JP however sought a change in the mindset of the rulers and voters alike, and did not take on constitutional institutions. If anything, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi cited his call to the armed forces not to follow 'illegal orders' from the Government to justify the proclamation of the Emergency. Ironically, there are more leaders in the political Opposition in the country than in the ruling Congress Party - which was at the helm during the Emergency days - who have had a taste of that dark era. For Team Anna to keep them out would mean that they are strategising for the right cause but in a wrong way.
The suggestion of the likes of R R Diwakar and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru for Gandhiji to involve the masses in the freedom movement may not have any relevance now. Yet, the fact remains that the strategy of involving the masses in movements of the kind need to be studied closely if they have to be taken to the logical end - in the absence of which in the early days, the Mahathma himself could not succeed wholly, but had to end some abruptly.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
