Corruption which has deep roots in the Indian society, needs an equally deep rooted solution. This solution must come from an awakened nationalism. For this, an environment of free thinking, productive argument and debate must be created. The onus lies with the various participants of polity like the media, civil society and the state. Is Lokpal an outcome of this churning process? Will this institution act as a detterent or will it be a cure to the chronic disease of corruption? How effective will it be if at all it sees the light of the day?
With the emergence of the middle class and the growth in technology, every govt. policy has come under the scrutiny of these educated people. The general awareness levels of the people has increased with an increase in literacy levels. With the boom in the IT and Telecom sectors, the distance between people has narrowed and connectivity has become faster than ever. World wide, the social networking sites have provided the much needed impetus to the people's movements against the corrupt govts. as seen in the West Asia and North Africa (WANA) region. In India too they played an important role in mobilising the diverse sections of the society, with a common cause, against the corruption.
Lokpal bill is one such outcome which awaits its materialisation. It has been 40 odd years since it was first introduced in the parliament. Anti corruption laws in India are truly flawed as they expect the accused to act against himself, which turns out to be a conflict of interest. Lokpal, is anologous to the ombudsmen system of the west. Its mandate is to register and investigate the charges of corruption levied against the govt. officials. But the govt. draft of the bill again makes it a puppet in their hands thus defeating the very purpose of the bill.
Govt. is accusing the civil society of using arm twisting techniques like staging dharnas to pressurise the govt. to pass the latter's version of the bill. In a democracy, peaceful dharnas are completely acceptable ways to voice people's opinions. Govt. though has a de jure authority over the final version of the bill, as the representatives of the people and to avoid the conflict the interest, should not the civil society and the people be given the chance to take the final call on the bill? Even the civil society must not hurry through this process. They must put forth all the pros and cons in front of the people and then take their valuable opinion through a proper referendum.
Though there are many contentious issues in the lokpal bill, two of them are glaring and important. One is about inclusion of PM within the ambit of lokpal and other is the protection given to the whistle blowers.
Presently PM is covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. With bringing that office under lokpal there can be a common body for investigation. Critics say that this would create instability in the system. But as they say, "You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide".
Whistleblowers' protection as envisaged by the bill cannot be comprehensive with the extensive nexus between the criminals and the politicians. Will lokpal hire naxals and goondas as the threat would be from these groups on the other side? Police protection would be the last option when there is a politician on the other side. Protecting the identity of the individual is a better solution but it all would depend on how strong the system is.
Prevention is better than cure. Lokpal with all its powers can only cure the existing disease and not prevent its future occurences. Preventive measures include abolishing Art 311 which gives security of tenure to the civil servants. This would keep them on their toes w.r.t their efficiency and honesty. Electoral reforms such as introducing 'none of the above' option in the list of contesting candidates. Though these reforms have their own setbacks, with a proper system in place, these are possible.
Finally, to hit the nail on its head, an attitudinal change must be brought among the people. No law or Act can be successful if the people are reluctant to change. This change is possible only through an education system integrated with moral values. It needs strong conviction and character to say 'No' to corruption. Thus it should come from source (moral principles) and not by force (law). This is the only permanent prevention and rest all are just temporary and superficial cures.
No comments:
Post a Comment