Lokpal Bill: Can’t ignore Standing Committee, says Aruna Roy

Anna Hazare ill advised, says Aruna Roy Didn’t say Anna was ill advised: Aruna Roy

(Note: She did say it, as one can hear in the previous video; but may be it was selective editing. However, I am also of the view that Anna was ill advised and so far the ill advises continue.) NAC has its own version of Lokpal Bill

Following are Aruna Roy’s views as quoted in Economic Times. Her views resonate with me more than the views coming out of Anna’s camp.

Terming Anna Hazare’s Jan Lokpal Bill "impractical and complicated", noted social activist … Aruna Roy said that giving widespread powers to an unelected body is a "threat to democracy".

"Jan Lokpal is a bill impossible to implement. Also, it derails the checks and balances between the judiciary, executive and other organs of the democratic structure," Roy, 65, who pioneered the right to information (RTI) movement in the country, told IANS in an interview here.

"Not that we agree with the government Lokpal Bill. The Lokpal legislation should be thoroughly deliberated again by activists, lawmakers and all other stakeholders.

"We of course support the democratic right of Hazare to hold demonstrations and fast against the government. That is why we condemned the arrest of Hazare," she said. …

Asked about the huge public support Hazare has drawn, Roy said: "There have been huge gatherings in support of NGO-sponsored agitations, like the Narmada Bachao movement. It might not have got similar publicity, as live TV was not there then."…

Roy, a Magsaysay award winner, said the Jan Lokpal bill is a "giant, complicated exercise" as it tried to extend from the prime minister to a peon.

"It wants to bring the higher judiciary into its ambit, which otherwise should have been under the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010," she said.

She felt that the suggestion of dual duties — curbing corruption and redressing grievances — under the Jan Lokpal was not feasible.

"The Jan Lokpal is a threat to democracy as a powerful, non-elected agency can lead to abuse of power and abuse of authority. Power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely," she quipped.

"Grievance redressal should not be the role of the Lokpal; it should be the work of the executive.

"See, wages of lakhs of workers in the NREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) in Rajasthan have not been paid. But that is because the shortage of bank staff and other bureaucratic delays," she said.

The massive organisational setup suggested in the Jan Lokpal will lead to corruption and inefficiency, she cautioned.

"You may be able to find 11 Lokpal members of integrity, but it is difficult to create a clean set-up of thousands of staffers and hold them accountable," Roy said.

The government-drafted Lokpal is also deficient on several fronts, she added. Since it excludes cases under the state governments, there can be no probe against cases like the Adarsh housing society scandal, the Commonwealth Games scam and illegal mining in Karnataka.

She said excluding the prime minister and the higher judiciary was wrong. "This is a wrong practice. Nobody should be above the law," she said, adding that there should be certain safeguards. "Like both the Lokpal and the Supreme Court should agree on a probe against the prime minister."

Roy also suggested that the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill should be revised to facilitate effective action against the higher judiciary while the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) should be strengthened to probe junior officials.

The whistleblowers’ protection bill too should be revised to deal with the increasing attacks and threats against RTI activists, she suggested.

"The Lokpal bill should not become an issue of adamant stances, political rivalries and personality-driven agitations. What we need is a sincere, detailed debate for legislation of immense social significance and public concern," she said.

Roy, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer from 1968 to 1974, resigned from the government as the clouds of Emergency were gathering. …

Roy’s campaign for right to information led to the enactment of the RTI Act – in Rajasthan in 2000 and five years later at the national level.

I completely agree with Aruna Roy that the parliamentary standing committee must be respected. The fact that at some other time bills were passed without much of a debate does not mean that the same should be done here. The Lokpal set up, at least as described in the Jan Lokpal bill is like another branch of democracy and proper discussions must happen at all levels before a bill on this is passed.

Now some quotes from a Business Standard article.

Harsh Mander, another NCPRI member said: “I am worried about people on the streets, who are dreaming of a better country. How can we reduce it to just one view and one issue? Let us deepen the debate and struggle for a better India.”

He said more views should be taken into account and the best possible solution should be provided to these people.

However, Justice A P Shah was harsh in his criticism of the insistence of the Anna team on having only their version of the Bill passed. “Anna is not civil society and civil society is not Anna,” he said. He said that ombudsmen in no country is given power over judiciary and this was very dangerous.

The differences between the NCPRI and its supporters and Anna supporters on the Lok Pal Bill are just a few. But, it is what is seen as the intolerant attitude of the Anna team which has annoyed NCPRI members and supporters like Anhad to organise the press conference.

Roy added that actions of the team were tantamount to hijacking the democratic system. Democracy is for the poor and it is our responsibility to make it work. We can remove rotten parts in a system, but, we cannot throw away the system itself.

“I can sit on the streets and demand that the collector delivers, but I cant go and sit in the collector’s chair. What the Anna team wants is almost that,” she said.

… The two main differences in Anna’s Bill and Aruna Roy’s Bill are the non-inclusion of the judiciary in the latter’s version and the replacement of a single Lok Pal with a three-level structure to investigate corruption at different levels of the society.

But, it is not the differences in the Bill that is causing concern to those who differ from Anna Hazare.

Roy said, “If Anna has a right to dissent, he should also acknowledge and admit the right of other people in the country to have differences with him on the Lok Pal”.

She said it was solely because of Anna Hazare and his team that Lok Pal has today become such a big issue.

Arvind Kejriwal, member of the Anna Hazare team said it was a misunderstanding that they were holding the Parliament to ransom on the Bill. He also dismissed the differences with Aruna Roy on the Bill as very minor.

“Multiple agencies to deal with corruption would lead to confusion. When a complaint is filed, we don’t know if a higher official or a lower official is involved. So it cannot work,” said Prashant Bhushan, another memeber of Hazare’s team.

I partly agree and partly disagree with the last statement of Prashant Bhusan. In case of RTI also one may not know which office to file the RTI. But ultimately it can trickle down from a top office to a lower office. The same can happen with respect to corruption complaints. However, a proper procedure should be laid out when it is clear that "corruption" has happened but is not clear at what level.

Finally, check out the articles and comments in the following: