The more things change, the more they stay the same, says a French proverb. This is applicable to the Lokpal Bill.
I have always been struck by the French proverb, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” The proverb has a ring of the philosophic, the temporal and the literary. But to find its perfect validation in the real world was always a quest. Finally, I think I have found it in our great Lokpal conundrum. Decades have passed since 1968 when the first Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament by Shanti Bhushan. Governments have changed, India has changed, corruption has become India’s logo, unprecedented popular agitations have happened, citizens’ groups demanding eradication of corruption have crystallized, most notably the public campaign led by Anna Hazare — India Against Corruption. But after four decades of failed attempts, we’re back to 1968. Rightly, as far as the Lokpal Bill is concerned, the more things have changed, the more they have remained the same.
Law Minister Ashoke Kumar Sen first proposed the concept of a Constitutional ombudsman in Parliament in the early 1960s. Shanti Bhushan in 1968 proposed the first Jan Lokpal Bill, which was passed in the Lok Sabha in 1969, but before it could be passed by the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved and the Bill lapsed. Lokpal Bills were introduced eight times repeatedly from 1971 to 2008, but were never passed. 44 years after its first introduction, the Lokpal Bill is still pending in India.
It was only the public pressure built up by Anna Hazare’s campaign against corruption that was drawing bigger and bigger crowds each passing day, and the unanimous public expression of extreme disgust against the government’s chronic corruption that shook the government out of its complacency. It took repeated agitations and fasts by Anna Hazare, and his detention that gave a further shot in the arm to the movement, for an assurance to be given in April 2011, that the government would incorporate the concerns of civil society in the Lokpal Bill. A joint drafting committee with Team Anna members was constituted, but the differences between them were too great to be bridged. Talks broke down, and in August 2011, the government introduced the controversial Lokpal Bill in the Lok Sabha, a much watered down version of what had been demanded from the citizen groups led by Anna Hazare.
The UPA government then had to employ a well orchestrated, subversive legislative strategy, one that could kill two birds with one stone. It had to impress the people of India, albeit through deception and chicanery, that it was serious about fighting corruption, and was fulfilling its commitment to Parliament by introducing the Bill. And simultaneously, it had to ensure that the Bill was legislatively so deficient with errors that it could not pass muster, and so weak and inadequate, that it was sure to be unacceptable to the Opposition and civil society. Apart from the Congressmen who absented themselves from the Lok Sabha, the UPA constituents themselves opposed the bill. Naturally, as the mere mention of the word Lokpal strikes more terror in their hearts than the terrorism that threatens our nation. Furthermore, the government made it very clear that the Bill had no intention of releasing the CBI from government clutches and bringing it under the Lokpal, thereby making a categorical statement, that it would continue to hold final controls on which corruption can be investigated and prosecuted, and which can be hushed up and allowed to flourish.
This is what the Lokpal Bill offered. The Lokpal will have no power to initiate suo motu action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. It can only probe complaints forwarded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Lokpal will only be an advisory body with a role limited to forwarding reports to a “Competent Authority”. Lokpal will have no police powers and no ability to register an FIR or proceed with criminal investigations. The CBI will not be under the control of the Lokpal, and the anti-corruption wing of the CBI will not be merged into the Lokpal. The Prime Minister can be investigated by the Lokpal after she/he vacates office. Judiciary is exempt and will be covered by a separate “Judicial Accountability Bill”. MPs can be investigated, but their conduct within Parliament, such as voting, cannot be investigated. Only senior officers (Group A) will be covered. All state anti-corruption agencies would be closed and responsibilities taken over by centralised Lokpal. No protection was provided for whistleblowers, and Lokpal can only refer matters to the courts and not take any direct punitive actions. Penalties would remain equivalent to those in current laws.
Lalu Yadav proved himself an able supari, using every absurdity possible to attack the Lokpal, while betraying his own terror of the Bill. “We are sitting here to sign the death warrant of all MPs, MLAs, MLCs and government employees,” he said. His final expected and ludicrous allegation against the Bill was that it was anti minority, since no reservations for minorities were made in the Lokpal. As if to say that practice of corruption and its stoppage, too must follow the quota system.
The malafides of the government were also completely exposed when the Bill was discussed and passed by voice vote on 27 December 2011. The Congress plunged the House into chaos and with the illegitimate assistance of the Chair avoided an adverse vote of virtual no confidence. Part III of the Bill consisting of Sections 63 to 97, dealing with Lokayuktas in the states, was intentionally and clearly ultra vires, so as to ensure that the Bill could not pass, unless the Constitution was amended as provided in the 116th Amendment-Bill simultaneously presented to the Lok Sabha. With that the fate of the Lokpal Bill was sealed. It was a deliberately confused legislation, with two ministers declaring that the Lokpal Bill was legislation under Entry One of the Concurrent List, even though the recitals in the Preamble to the Bill seemed to rely on Entry Thirteen in the Union List — that it “is expedient to enact a law, for more effective implementation of the said Convention (United Nations Convention Against Corruption), and to provide for prompt and fair investigation and prosecution in cases of corruption.”
Let the people of India know that this was deliberate obfuscation — the Bill was not implementing any binding decision taken at an international convention. So the Lokpal Bill was introduced with all the potential to be a non starter, and the UPA government, that had most to fear from it, was supremely satisfied at its achievement.