10 Questions I've been asked (regarding my views on the Jan Lokpal Movement)

Okay, this post ought to have been published a week ago but the whole cacophony that was being generated by politicians, journalists, social activists and enthu cutlets put me off so badly that I decided not to add to the commotion. Ah well, my timing is not always impeccable but this article is something I've been wanting to do for some time now so I'm putting it up anyway.

Over the last few months, I've made my disapproval of the Jan Lokpal Movement fairly clear, both on this blog as well as on Twitter. As a consequence, several people (most of whom were nice and friendly) have questioned me about my views, wondering why I am not supporting something that seems like such a worthy cause. Well, this article lists out ten of the most common questions that I've been asked along with my answers. I am thankful to Nitin Pai and his blog The Acorn -  it was Nitin Pai's set of Frequently Asked Questions that inspired me to compile the questions that I've been asked, with appropriate answers. Do take a look.


1. Why don't you support Anna Hazare? Are you not against corruption?

This is the most common question that I've been asked - both online as well as in the real world. Let me answer this question carefully and hope that you will read this carefully too.

I don't support Anna Hazare on two grounds. First, I don't agree with several points of the Jan Lokpal Bill. I think the institution being promoted by Anna Hazare and his supporters is much too strong and risks concentrating too much power in the hands of one agency. Second, I don't agree with the manner in which this bill is being forced upon Parliament for implementation. A mob of people glaring at the government and forcing them to accept a policy is not the right way of getting things done. This will have consequences in the future. 

Having said that, I don't hold any sort of grudge against Anna Hazare or his supporters. I can understand the frustration that lies behind this movement and the need felt by some of Hazare's supporters to get something meaningful out of their government. Nevertheless, my empathy doesn't lead to sympathy. Sorry.

2. What is wrong with the Jan Lokpal Bill? Don't you think a strong institution is needed to keep corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in check?

Let me answer the second part of the question first. Conceptually, a strong institution keeping a strict watch on corruption may sound like a very good idea. But just try and imagine the daily workings of such an institution. 

Firstly, there is the problem of size. If you wish to investigate everyone in the government ranging from the lower bureaucracy all the way up to the Prime Minister, you will need a massive workforce. Where are you going to get this workforce from? Remember, these people can't be picked randomly from the ranks of civil society or judiciary. They need to demonstrate detailed knowledge of law, impeccable understanding of procedures and a good ability to detect acts of corruption (which are going to be hidden as well as possible). Do we have such talented people within our ranks? 

Even if we do, what assurance do we have that such people won't become corrupt themselves?  We can keep on creating higher and higher institutions to keep tabs on the lower ones but we have absolutely no guarantee that these institutions won't become corrupt themselves, especially if you're looking at a slightly longer time frame. 

Regarding the provisions of the bill itself, there is not much to say that doesn't come under the arguments above. For a more detailed criticism of the bill, you can check out this article by Amba Salelkar.

3. But the Jan Lokpal will be an independent agency with some degree of autonomous power. Won't that act as a deterrent against corruption?

Yes, a greater degree of independence may serve as a stronger deterrent but the important question you have to ask yourself is, at what cost? Granting autonomy or independence to a government institution is always fraught with risks and should not be done unless it is absolutely necessary. More importantly, under no circumstances should autonomy be granted to an institution that has too much power or control over a major section of the government. 

This is the major difference between granting autonomy to an institution such as the Election Commission and to an institution such as the Lokpal. The EC has a very specific function - to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections. While this is an important role, the EC is not allowed, by law, to interfere in issues of governance or policy. The Lokpal envisioned by the Anna Hazare movement however, gives a lot of power to the Lokpal to not just investigate the motives behind government policies but also prosecute those who it believes to be indulging in misuse of power. This will give the Lokpal enough potential to interfere in matters of governance and policy and there is a very real risk that the Lokpal may find itself dictating what it considers "appropriate policy" to those who are supposed to be framing the laws of this country. 

There is one more point. A greater degree of autonomy can also make it harder to remove a corrupt officer from the Lokpal. We saw a recent example of how difficult it is to remove a High Court Judge - it required the consent of a majority in both houses of Parliament. However, the judiciary is not a proactive agency and (generally) does not have the power to take up cases on its own. Can we say the same of the Lokpal? No. What would happen if a corrupt Lokpal Officer decides to torment a government official for some unworthy reason? Under such circumstances, it may become very difficult to prove a case against him and make sure he's held accountable.  

4. So are you saying we should do nothing against corruption?

Not at all! As far as the Jan Lokpal Bill is concerned, all I am asking is for people to consider alternatives seriously. A lot of media attention has already been given to Aruna Roy and the NCPRI's version of the Lokpal which I personally feel is a much better version (in concept that is - I don't think a proper draft has been made yet). Additionally, there might be other ideas for the Lokpal that may have been ignored in all this brouhaha and ought to be brought forward.

There is also another option that one can consider - forgetting the idea of the Lokpal altogether and concentrating on strengthening the existing institutions such as the Vigilance Commissions. There are risks involved in all these proposals, it's true. But here's the thing - there has been no discussion whatsoever right from the start. While the Anna Hazare camp did invite proposals for modifications and suggestions, they were very clear that the central components of the Jan Lokpal would remain unaltered. The Government, of course, has been even more hopeless. 

5. But the people have already decided in favour of the Jan Lokpal! Why bother with discussions?

Firstly, what do you mean by "the people"? Are you referring to the hordes who've turned out at places like Ram Lila Grounds and Freedom Park to give voice to Anna Hazare? All right, if that's what you mean, you may have a rough idea of how many people support the Jan Lokpal Bill. But what about the numbers who don't? How many people do you think turned out for the protests? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Ten Lakhs?  A Crore? That's about it, I think. One crore or Ten Million is a safe enough estimate. Now, what's the population of this country? 1.2 Billion? Which means you can, at most, account for approximately 0.8% of this entire country! Even if you take only the opinions of those who are above 18 years of age (which is roughly 65% of the population or 780 Million), the percentage of people who can safely be said to support the bill equals only 1 in every 78 people.  

It is in such instances that one can appreciate what an incredible exercise our elections truly are. Even if just 35% of our adult population came out to vote, you're still taking into account the opinions of more than 270 Million people. This is why elections matter more than protests on the street. Even if you amass a 100 Million people (for comparison, the population of the entire city of Mumbai is around 17-18 million) to confidently support the Jan Lokpal Bill on the street, you would still have less than half the number of people in an election characterized by a poor turnout.

Secondly, choosing a bill without considering the alternatives is not choosing at all. It's arbitrary selection. This is why every bill proposed by the Government's Executive is discussed and debated in Parliament before being passed into law. Alternatives that may not have had a chance to be heard are brought forward. This is clearly not happening in the Jan Lokpal Movement and is one of the reasons I don't support it. 

6. The number on the streets don't matter. There are bound to be millions who support the Jan Lokpal Bill and haven't come out.

Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. There's no way of determining what those who don't come out in protest are thinking. In fact, how can you be sure that everyone who's on the street supports the Jan Lokpal? It may be that most of them are simply against corruption and don't care what sort of bill is passed as long as it's reasonably good. Under such circumstances, can you confidently push forward the Jan Lokpal Bill citing the support of millions?

Please don't forget, this "will of the people" argument is an ancient one. Political parties have used this excuse to do outrageous things, all the while claiming the support "of the people". Riots have occurred, property has been damaged and even lives have been taken because "the people of this country/state/religion/community are behind us". The argument against such actions applies to the Jan Lokpal Movement in equal measure, though it is a peaceful, non-violent movement. How can you be so sure of the numbers that support you?

7. So are you saying the only way to protest is through elections? Should we wait every five years to showcase our dissent? Isn't that ridiculous?

It is and that's precisely why I am not making that argument. Elections constitute an important part of the democratic process but it's not the end of a voter's responsibility - it's the beginning. A voter shouldn't move from E to F that is "from Elect to Forget". He or she should stay on E - "Elect and Engage". Engage with the government. Work with them regularly and build better relationships with them. Only then can we have a proper, functioning democracy.

What we need are new, innovative platforms to engage with our Governments on a regular basis. We already have provisions for such platforms to function at a local level - ward committees and area sabhas. What we need to do is strengthen these platforms, increase our interaction with the people who govern us and try to come up with ways and means to interact with higher levels of government as well (though I admit, this is easier said than done). How is this different from protests and hunger strikes? For starters, such platforms are more stable, more versatile and more accommodating. Secondly, such platforms are about interaction, not confrontation like protests and hence, allow for a more friendly working environment. However, I am not going to pretend that such platforms will solve all our problems. Nevertheless, I feel they're a better thing to campaign for as compared to higher and higher regulatory authorities.

8. Are you saying protests and hunger strikes are bad? Don't we have the right to protest?

Let me make this very clear. A citizen certainly has the right to protest. And even though it may not be legally acceptable, I personally don't care if someone goes on a hunger strike as long as the person is fully aware that he or she is putting their body, health and life at significant risk. However, the Government does not...and I repeat...does not have any obligation or duty to listen to your protest or pay attention to your hunger strike. This may seem outrageous, but think about it. Protests and hunger strikes are carried out every single year by some group or people or the other for some cause or the other. Many of these causes are in fact, extremely worthy and need to be taken up. However, if the government had an actual, legally specified duty to listen to protesters, it would spend all year negotiating with protesters over a number of issues and the basic function of governance would be left lying undone. 

Some of you might think that this movement deserves to be treated as a special case. Let me point out something - every movement is special to those who take part in it. Those who protest for the victims of Bhopal feel that their campaign is special. Those who're protesting against AFSPA feel that their issues deserve to be heard. And they're not wrong. There are genuine issues that lie behind every protest, including the Jan Lokpal Movement and it is normally recommended for Governments to pay attention to these issues. But that's where it should stop, at recommendation. Governments usually have enough incentive to pay attention, even if they're not legally obligated to do so. Why else do you think the UPA even bothered inviting Anna Hazare and his team to form a part of the initial Lokpal committee? Why else has Varun Gandhi stated that he will introduce the Jan Lokpal Bill as an individual MP's recommendation in Parliament? Incentives.

9. But Mahatma Gandhi did the same thing as Anna Hazare during the Freedom movement. Are you saying he was wrong? Do you dare oppose Gandhiji's own methods?

First of all, I am highly uncomfortable with the idea of justifying something simply because it has been done in the past. Yes, Gandhiji may have resorted to such methods but can any of us say we truly understand the circumstances under which he carried them out? Few of us were alive at that time and even if some people were, can we truly and confidently assert that Gandhiji would have approved of us using his methods under such circumstances for such an issue? If you wish to do something, it would be better to justify it on logical grounds as compared to historical. Today, in 2011, I find  it wrong to use a hunger strike to enforce a bill, regardless of how appropriate or inappropriate it was in the past. And therefore, I object to it.

Secondly, opposing methods such as hunger strikes and protests doesn't make me unpatriotic. I am still against corruption, I too dislike most of the politicians we have in office and sincerely wish for a day when we aren't bogged by these heavy problems. My disagreements are with the specifics of this movement.

10. But shouldn't we go out and show support for Anna Hazare's intention of eradicating corruption? Even if we have doubts about his bill?

I have made the following point in one of my earlier posts. Mass movements cannot make complicated decisions because the message they send out to the country has to be simple and precise. The Jan Lokpal Movement is just that - a movement for the Jan Lokpal. If you choose to take part in this movement, you're essentially communicating your desire for a Jan Lokpal, regardless of whether you actually want it or not. Sure, you may be against corruption but that is already implicit. What the Jan Lokpal Movement asks of you is to show more than just your dislike of corruption.


If you have doubts about the Jan Lokpal, I advise you to stay out of the movement. Go show your support only if you really and truly want the Jan Lokpal to come into existence, exactly as Anna Hazare and Co want it to be.   

Bonus Question (not meant for the nice inquirers): You're a CONgress stooge.


Good joke, troll. Now go grunt somewhere else.

----

PS - As an afterthought, I'd like you to consider this - close your eyes and picture the Jan Lokpal Movement that is occurring with full force in the cities across our country. Now imagine that instead of a neutral, apolitical man like Anna Hazare, the movement was being conducted by a politician heading a political party. Every thing else is the same; the hysteria, the slogans, the discussions, the shouting, they're all identical. Now answer me honestly - how different do you think this movement is from any standard political campaign? Would you have supported this movement if it had been headed by a politician?

PPS - Is it inquire or enquire? I always get confused. 

Image Courtesy: cupidspeaks.com