Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘At the first meeting, Shanti Bhushan said something about how we are here, writing the Constitution afresh’ by Ravish Tiwari

‘At the first meeting, Shanti Bhushan said something about how we are here, writing the Constitution afresh’ by Ravish Tiwari

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jun 19, 2011   modified Modified on Jun 19, 2011

Team Hazare has been very critical of the responses of the government representatives in the drafting committee. They even said the Lokpal had become a Jokepal.

During the discussions, we did not want to do anything that would upset the applecart. We did not go to the media, except for Kapil Sibal who held a daily briefing. The Hazare team did not want a joint briefing. We agreed. We did a briefing which was factual and about the day’s discussions. We did not talk about what our views were and how we were strongly against certain propositions. In the beginning, they complained about what they called ‘de-briefing’. We were careful not to do anything of that kind. On Thursday, we felt it was important that the debate should not go on by default. After their press conference, we made our point of view clear. We still haven’t agreed to go to a public debate because if you go to a public debate and you forcefully say whatever you want to say, then the next morning at the drafting committee meeting, the members of civil society will say that we have already made up our minds and there is no use of the discussions. They kept going to some public platform or the other every day and put their points across and misinterpreted what we have been saying. The day before our discussions, we told them it was unfair of them to run down the government and then sit across the table from us with smiling faces. They conceded that this will not happen again. They said categorically, let’s forget the past and let’s proceed with drafting the Bill. Then Santosh Hegde said the Congress general secretary was attacking him. I told him that we hold him in high esteem. The general secretary has the right to his views—we cannot gag him just because we are talking to civil society members. He says things against us from time to time—he even disagrees with government actions.

At the meeting, we looked at two or three specific issues. There was some agreement and some disagreement. At one stage, Shanti Bhushan and others agreed that we should not delay the Bill over disagreements. They said, let’s just draft the Bill. They said we should draft the Bill and then they will tell us with what they disagree. To which Pranabda said no, we cannot draft a Bill for you. We draft what we want and you draft what you want. The areas of agreement we will present as common and on those issues we do not agree, we asked for their alternatives which we would place before the Cabinet. They agreed. They said you cannot control the Cabinet and we cannot control the Cabinet, together we cannot control Parliament, so let our draft go as an alternative on the provisions where we disagree. We parted on that. They said we should meet on June 20 and finish off the work on the draft Bill. We agreed. We agreed that if there was a spillover, we would meet on June 21. Pranabda said he would be away between June 22-30 so if we cannot wrap it up by June 30, we will finish it off by July 1. They said they had no problem with that. We finished the meeting on that note and then they came out and said we are cheats and that we have let them down. So we gave our point of view. What they came up with was a completely unacceptable situation. We tried to chisel it down to an acceptable situation. They said anybody under the sun can be Lokpal, anybody can nominate Lokpal, and once Lokpal is nominated, it will be on the website and anybody can comment on that person. They said Magsaysay winners, Nobel Prize winners, the youngest judges from the Supreme Court or other branches—about 15 people—would nominate the Lokpal. We said it is not possible. They have retreated and agreed to what we suggested: let it comprise the PM, Leader of the Opposition, Chief Justice of India, nominated chief justices of high courts. We said let there be a search committee for Lokpal.

We have agreed that there will be no sanction required for investigations. We have agreed that there will be an investigation branch entirely under them. We have agreed that their expenses will be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India. We have agreed that they would have to submit themselves to the Budget. Where is the disagreement? On the Prime Minister, we have agreed that once a PM demits office, you can investigate his conduct. We have agreed that ministers can be examined, MPs could be examined, provided they are referred by the presiding officer and the report is sent back to the presiding officer to be placed before Parliament. We are saying that this is going to be a high-powered body of people who will take quasi-judicial decisions. They want Lokpal to have police powers. We said Lokpal cannot have police powers. The police under you will have police powers, you cannot walk into people’s homes, you cannot tap their telephones, you cannot physically call people and put them under interrogation, but an investigation officer can and that investigation officer will be answerable to you. They agreed. We said Lokpal would address corruption in higher places. They said no, the chaprasi who works for the government must be subject to Lokpal. We agreed but said he will be subject to Lokpal and not to the Lokpal’s delegated officer. They said then you are trying to kill Lokpal by giving him too many cases. We said that’s what you are doing, we wanted it to go only till the joint-secretary level, you want it to go further. They wanted the Lokpal to take disciplinary action against an officer who is sent for prosecution. They will decide his suspension, termination or removal, deduction in rank. We said you decide and recommend to government, which will consult UPSC and UPSC will revert to the government. They said they do not trust the government. They won’t trust anybody.

Amitabh Sinha: Do you think the government has tied itself into knots by inviting them for discussions when you knew they would have demands you would not agree with?

If you look at our earlier Bill, the Bill that we drafted, and look at this Bill, this is a far better, a superior bill that has been drafted. Let us give credit that this draft has come out of a collaborative effort between them and us. Our Bill would not have been as good as this. The collaborative effort has given a better Bill. That’s one bottomline. The second is, should we have done this at all? We have made an exception. We have responded to their demands for participatory democracy.

Coomi Kapoor: This is the first time something like this has been done. Is it setting a bad precedent?

When you try something like this experimentally, if it is useful, it can be institutionalised. If it is not useful, it can be made into an exception. There is nothing that binds us by law to do this again and again. For the first time on any issue, media, new media were directly involved in running a huge campaign. Instead of running a counter-campaign and taking it head on, we thought if they had something sensible and useful to contribute, we’ll talk to them. We made an exception for the sake of participatory democracy. Some say, this is wrong, others say we have not done enough, some ask why we picked only these five people. It was an experiment. It will not bypass parliamentary procedures, both of consultation and drafting. The final touches will be given by the Law ministry, then it will go to the Cabinet and to Parliament. So we will be back on the same procedure. We have just taken additional inputs.

Amitabh Sinha: Before Anna Hazare’s fast, was the Lokpal Bill even on the radar of the UPA government or on its priority list?

There is a Bill supposed to be presented during the next parliamentary session. The Law Minister, Moily, had a Bill ready in 2010. We have been through the exercise earlier. Under the present government, this is the next step forward from RTI, for accountability and transparency.

Maneesh Chibber: From the first day of discussions, was there a trust deficit between civil society members and you?

We went with an open mind. We showed restraint and tried to be as friendly and accommodating as possible. Their supporters or maybe they themselves wrote the most violent and vulgar things about the five of us and circulated them. We did not make an issue of it when any self-respecting person would have walked out.

Maneesh ChHibber: At any point of time, was there a suggestion from the PM that he wanted the PM to come under the Lokpal?

No, this was neither discussed amongst us nor do we feel the need for it because at some stage after the draft is ready, Pranabda or the Home Minister will continue to brief him about developments every day. But we haven’t specifically considered the issue from the point of view of what his position may be but our considered position is that it would not leave for a viable governance of the country if PM, when serving, is put under the scanner of the Lokpal. We have not said the PM’s office or any minister working in the PMO should not be touched. We have made an exception just of the PM.

M K Venu: Couldn’t you have included the Opposition parties or other political parties in the drafting committee? Was this not a mistake?

Absolutely. But at that time, we could not tell Anna Hazare to continue his fast for three more days till we got in touch with other parties. We had to do something expeditious. We were aware there are other members of civil society who would feel left out. We do not treat these people as representatives of the entire civil society. We treated them as people who have made a special effort to be heard, who made a special effort to draft something, to run a campaign. But we were clear that it is not a Jaya Prakash Narayan movement.

Rakesh Sinha: Should senior ministers of the government have gone to the airport to receive Baba Ramdev?

I have no idea under what circumstances the decision was taken. But that decision was taken in extreme shortage of time and with the belief that we should not be distracted by another unsavoury event happening in Delhi again. If there was a possibility of nipping it in the bud, we should nip it in the bud. There was contact with Baba Ramdev before the airport meeting. We knew that officials from Central Board of Direct Taxation had gone to explain to him the steps that have been taken to retrieve money stored outside. There was ongoing communication with him which could be taken to a positive conclusion. It was after we reached a conclusion that he decided to go back on it.

M K Venu: How does the Congress leadership or the core committee view this new civil society model?

Congress sees civil society like anybody does studying an amoeba. When we took its picture last, it appeared in a particular shape. We had dealt with them before, at the 2004 elections. We tried to understand from them, we spent some time to make them understand that we are government and not an NGO called Government of India and we will always be the government. We tried to bring about an institutional arrangement with NGOs, which is the NAC. That is the most responsible and the best institutional arrangement that we have with civil society. Unfortunately, when someone becomes part of institutionalised civil society, the amoeba changes shape. Those poor people are now alienated from civil society. They are not clear whether they should oppose or propose what civil society is doing. They had decided to not proceed on the Lokpal Bill. They had done a lot of work on it. But they decided to let it go. They said the amoeba has changed and let the new amoeba handle it.

Swaraj Thapa: Where differences exist in the Bill, you will send two alternatives to the Cabinet. Does that not defeat the very purpose of a joint drafting committee?

On the points where there’s a difference, there will be ten lines which will be common. The one extra line, which they want, will not be common, we shall write that in the bracket. What else can we do? Due to that line, shall we say, we will not have the Bill? When the minutes are released of the last meeting of the joint draft committee, you will see what they did in the meeting and what they did after the meeting.

Swaraj Thapa: Why doesn’t the joint drafting committee thrash out these issues?

Paucity of time. Till such time this government is the government, it will decide. They are saying government has no right to decide. Their basic understanding of democracy is that government has no right to decide. With great respect to Anna Hazare, he said, you are servants of the people. And if ‘servants’ do not comply, they will go on fast.

Swaraj Thapa: What happens on August 16 when Anna Hazare has threatened to resume his fast?

He will not be saying that to the government. He will be saying this to Parliament because the Bill will be the property of Parliament then. And if Parliament feels that Anna Hazare should get what he is asking for, Parliament will do it. We have said to him we are doing what we feel convinced about and we can carry with conviction in Parliament. If you can convince Parliament to do more, please do it. We are not stopping you. If Anna Hazare questions anything, he will be asking Parliament.

Amitabh Sinha: Seven versions of the Lokpal Bill have been introduced in Parliament. Every time a Congress government introduces it, the PM is out of the Bill, every time a non-Congress government does it, PM is included. Is it a coincidence?

Today on merit, I am clear the PM should not be there. I am clear on merit the judiciary should not be there. Why should judiciary not be there? For this simple reason that the judiciary is involved in the appointment of the Lokpal. It is involved in questioning any order anyone is dissatisfied with. The judiciary is also involved in prosecuting a person sent for prosecution by the Lokpal. Lokpal looks at judiciary’s wrongdoing, judiciary looks at Lokpal’s wrongdoing. Will that be a good system? When you send a prosecution to judiciary, they may feel that if we do not agree to this prosecution, we will get prosecuted ourselves. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so. I am not saying leave the judiciary alone. There is a Judicial Accountability Bill. They have not read the Bill. But they want the judiciary under them.

Raj Kamal Jha: Tell us about that day when they came with the list of the five names of the civil society group. Did they have any specific suggestions?

They asked for a particular minister. Kapil Sibal said, we will convey that to the PM. But since we could then have made suggestions about their group, they decided to drop it. But he is a good guy and I would have loved to have him in the panel.

Tanu Sharma: Is it true that Anna Hazare speaks the least at the meetings? What about Shanti Bhushan?

Anna Hazare periodically says there should be pardarshita. He wants television recordings of the meetings. Periodically he says, “we are here because we want to fight corruption”. Not much beyond that. Shanti Bhushan is like in the Constituent Assembly—we are sitting here with the people of India behind us, writing the Constitution. He is there with this utopian idea of what kind of Constitution we are going to write for this country. It’s like, the minor things we will give the government to do but the major things we will be doing—we, the civil society. On the first day, he said something about how we are here writing the Constitution afresh. Law Minister Moily said, but we don’t have the mandate to change the Constitution. Finally, even Shanti Bhushan agreed. But we haven’t said anything about them till now because they will then say, you are making fun of us. But they started by saying it’s a jokepal Bill, then they should accept our jokes.

The Indian Express, 19 June, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/at-the-first-meeting-shanti-bhushan-said-something-about-how-we-are-here-writing-the-constitution-afresh/805656/0

Tagged with: lokpal bill



Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

"Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...

"Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

"Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

Objectives | About Us | Workshops | Disclaimer
share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close