A section of the society believe that this is turning out to be a fight between the Parliament and the Civil Society? Well I have my doubts, for the Parliament was designed to be the voice of the people (the Lok Sabha is the House of Commons!). If those representing commons cannot see/hear that the ‘Commons‘ are out on the streets, asking/requesting/demanding a bill that may at least be a deterrent against corruption, this becomes ‘Parliament vs the Parliamentarians‘.
Before we get into further details, it is important to understand that the Parliament in India was designed in 1919 to have Legislative Supremacy over all other political bodies in the country. Well, the British would have loved that anyways! It appears that the Indian Government is also enjoying the supreme status as of now.
The problem as I see is that the people in power do not represent the majority of the country. Out of 550 odd members, 73 have serious cases registered against them under CRPC and over 150 Lok Sabha MPs have cases against them. I refuse to believe that a third of the country is made up of criminals! No political party in India was able to get over 50% popular vote in the 2009 elections. Is this a case of Highest Acceptance of the Least Despise?!?
The State is different from the Statesmen. This is one of the reasons that all parties accept that the Prime Minister should be included under the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Lokpal, on the post according the JanLokpal, and after stepping down, as per the Govt. Lokpal. No individual is above the law and that is the point that the Civil Society wants to make. If the Prime Minister is and will be honest, there is no reason for anyone to fear the law! There have to be reasonable checks in place to ensure that there are no frivolous complaints, and that should solve the purpose.
That said, the people of the country understand that the Parliamentary processes are right, and they will take time. ‘How long’ is the question. Is there a reasonable time limit to present and pass the bill in the Parliament? What would motivate a parliamentarian to approve of an authority that will question him? This is like asking the inmates of the prison to approve of a warden!
Parliament is the supreme authority on law making. All bills should be tabled in the Parliament, discussed and passed. Well that happened – way back in 1968! (Source – HERE)
Team Anna should respect the authority of the Standing Committee. Which one, the one formed in 1996, 1998 or 2001?!? Or the most recent one, that was formed after Anna Hajare threatened to fast in April?!? (Source – HERE)
There may be numerous arguments in favor of or against the Team Anna or the Jan Lokpal bill. The core issue is that whether the Government, the Opposition and the Bureaucratic fraternity of the country are motivated to bring a Lokpal that will have the fangs and teeth to allow a common man to be able to resort to an authority that will help and support him against corrupt practices of the office bearers.
Once again, this is not a fight between the Office and the Civil Society, this is between the Office-bearers and the common man on the streets.
