The true nature of Jan Lok Pal Bill Movement

Eagerly waiting for your counter argument VP Ji and be assured that BJP and/or Team Anna are not sponsoring me. :) Whatever I said is solely my opinion based on observation of recent developments and my little knowledge of Indian constitution.

You can consider eulogies also as lokpal and Indian democracy have been murdered by the govt. It is termed as "midnight flee-dom".

vpsingh said:
Friends, are we writing eulogies or discussing Lok Pal??
Click to expand...
 
jakhar77 said:
Eagerly waiting for your counter argument VP Ji and be assured that BJP and/or Team Anna are not sponsoring me. :) Whatever I said is solely my opinion based on observation of recent developments and my little knowledge of Indian constitution.
Click to expand...

Sita Ram Bhai, I will again go through the remaining points in due course. But, on the issue of Lokayukta I am still not convinced. I don't see a big issue in it even if it would have constituted an infringement upon the State List. You know, first we need a strong and unified centre against the menace of corruption and the autonomy of States comes later. In the name of federalism, we can not afford to give unlimited powers to the states where the tiny regional groupings might indulge in acts of corruption without any strong unified and centralized mechanism. It was not without any reason that Sardar Patel brought all the princely states under one umbrella. Now, in the name of autonomy so many regional parties are engaged in horse trading and blackmailing.
 
vpsingh said:
Friends, are we writing eulogies or discussing Lok Pal??
Click to expand...

Sir, At least allow us to write eulogies!! Pehale to bolane :redface:;) nahi diya about Jan Lokpal , lekin after untimely death of Lopkal, please allow us to say something good about jan Lokpal. क्या मरने के बाद भी इस बेचारे लोकपाल को २ अच्छे शब्द मयस्सर नहीं होंगे? :sorrow: हाय रे जालिम दुनिया!

JaKhar Sir has concisely mentioned points of conflict in Lokpal, Let's deliberate on those!
 
Last edited:
We can't help horse trading and blackmailing and these things are also used by congress, specially horse trading. Congress run its 2 terms of power only by buying the MPs.

Lokayukt issue is clear, if govt. wants to bring, govt. must have put it under article 253 to make it mandatory but why dilema in this issue? Making it optional and putting it under 253 is absolute blunder, it is like "dhobi ka kutta ghar ka na ghaat ka". The very base of Indian constitution can not be altered as said by the supreme court. Federalism is one of them.

The issue is not only anti-corrption in the bill, it brings discipline with it as well. Discipline can not be given to lokayukt. It is the state govt. issue, period.

What I am trying to say is, the provisions are so badly put in the bill that a lay person like me can sense the vulnerabilities and back them with constitutional provisions. There are big lawyers (liars also) in the cabinet committe on lokpal bill, how can they make this kind of blunders? It tells their real motive behind this bill.

vpsingh said:
Sita Ram Bhai, I will again go through the remaining points in due course. But, on the issue of Lokayukta I am still not convinced. I don't see a big issue in it even if it would have constituted an infringement upon the State List. You know, first we need a strong and unified centre against the menace of corruption and the autonomy of States comes later. In the name of federalism, we can not afford to give unlimited powers to the states where the tiny regional groupings might indulge in acts of corruption without any strong unified and centralized mechanism. It was not without any reason that Sardar Patel brought all the princely states under one umbrella. Now, in the name of autonomy so many regional parties are engaged in horse trading and blackmailing.
Click to expand...
 
@Sitaram Jakhar: Sita Ram Bhai, Refyr Post No. 95. My humble reply to items 2-9 written in extreme haste in wake of new year festivities.

2. As far as CBI issue is concerned, I would opine that it should be given an autonomous status or its administrative control could be given to Lok Pal. But, Govt. might have acted upon the advice of some experts and could not do so in anticipation of some procedural intricacies. This aspect could have been taken care of by BJP and Team Anna when they would have come to power in the next election. However, I would like to add that, after all Govt. is also representing a sizeable section of society and should enjoy a right of decision making. On the contrary, I have some reservation about the locus standii of Team Anna and authenticity of their claim to be a Civil Society representing majority of society. They do not have any constitutional sanctity either to issue dictates and prescriptions for making laws. Merely a crowd of a few lacs of people cannot take the position of law makers completely off the hook. They have, however, a democratic right to protest against corruption and raise their demands of an effective mechanism against it. But, It is upto the ruling party as to how far the demands should be accommodated. This is the point where democracy has to prevail and It is not imperative on a democratically elected government to accept 100% demands from the pressure groups. Even BJP or any other party in power would not offer this luxury to any civil society or the opposition (read Congress) in future, I am pretty sure.
3. Government cannot force BJP or any other opposition party to vote according to its whims and fancies.

4. There was no dissent from BJP in black and white on the final draft. The fact may be verified from the Lok Sabha Sectt.

5. May be the amendments from BJP were not found to be worthy of being incorporated in the Bill. Cabinet is empowered to do so.

6. Replies have already been given above and also in earlier posts.

7. –do-

8. Replied as item No. 2. I fully agree with you on CBI matter. It should be put either under Lok Pal or may be given full autonomy. The selection of top brass of CBI may be done by a Board comprising PM, leader of opposition and Supreme Court Judges etc.

9. I agree with you on the matter of selection committee membership and minority religious clause etc. I am against this kind of reservations.
 
Last edited:
Thanks VP Ji for taking pain for replying and enjoy the festivities. :)

2. Team anna said if CBI entirely can not be brought under lokpal, please bring the part which deals with anti-corruption. I am still in favor to make CBI constitutional body and make it independent. We all have seen how CBI has been misused by the govts. Recent examples are Mayawati and Jagan Reddy.


Anna team has brought the issue of corruption in central stage, they got people with them. They were not that much adamant, in their last expression when the bill went to loksabha, Team Anna had only one main demand, make CBI independent or bring it under lokpal or bring the anti-corruption wing under lokpal at least.

4. There were many dissent notes from BJP, I do not have documents from the loksabha secretariat but a few links below state so. Final draft was prepared by cabinet committee so only amendments can be brought on that. BJP gave many dissent notes in the standing committee draft.

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-POL-no-understanding-with-govt-on-lokpal-bjp-2664270.html

http://articles.economictimes.india...5_1_lokpal-bill-government-draft-lokpal-panel

http://www.thehansindia.info/News/Article.asp?category=1&subCategory=3&ContentId=24178

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2738754.ece

5. Amendments from BJP were related to their dissent notes, govt. was hell bent on voting out BJP's amendments to show that it is my way or highway, we have the numbers. BJP was asking for the same in rajyasabha, it is my way or high way, we have the numbers and govt. ran away from vote sensing defeat.


Lokayukt issue is still there, govt. was actually in dilemma and that hurt it so much. it was a big blunder same was the minority reservation which was termed representation in rajya sabha to gain some votes but had to run away in fear of defeat.
 
jakhar77 said:
We can't help horse trading and blackmailing and these things are also used by congress, specially horse trading. Congress run its 2 terms of power only by buying the MPs.

Lokayukt issue is clear, if govt. wants to bring, govt. must have put it under article 253 to make it mandatory but why dilema in this issue? Making it optional and putting it under 253 is absolute blunder, it is like "dhobi ka kutta ghar ka na ghaat ka". The very base of Indian constitution can not be altered as said by the supreme court. Federalism is one of them.

The issue is not only anti-corrption in the bill, it brings discipline with it as well. Discipline can not be given to lokayukt. It is the state govt. issue, period.

What I am trying to say is, the provisions are so badly put in the bill that a lay person like me can sense the vulnerabilities and back them with constitutional provisions. There are big lawyers (liars also) in the cabinet committe on lokpal bill, how can they make this kind of blunders? It tells their real motive behind this bill.
Click to expand...

भाई जाखड़ , इसमें कांग्रेस आल्ला की के गलती स , गलती तो भाजपा आल्ला की स उनने भाव ठीक कोणी लाये घोड़ा के ;)
असली संसोधन तो जाटलैंड आल्ले करण लागरे स , लोकसभा राज्यसभा वाले तो 3 दिन में ऐ थक हार लिए संसोधना न लेके | ले लो हाथ गाल के खींच दो मीटर सा बजट सैसन में इबके थामने पूरी तैयारी त जाणा स :)
 
भाई राका जी, बात करण जोगे भी ना रहे के? आपने कुछ इंटेरेस्ट सा न है तो रहन दयो, म्हाने तो kadhan दयो मन की. :) बाकि आपकी मर्जी है.

raka said:
भाई जाखड़ , इसमें कांग्रेस आल्ला की के गलती स , गलती तो भाजपा आल्ला की स उनने भाव ठीक कोणी लाये घोड़ा के ;)
असली संसोधन तो जाटलैंड आल्ले करण लागरे स , लोकसभा राज्यसभा वाले तो 3 दिन में ऐ थक हार लिए संसोधना न लेके | ले लो हाथ गाल के खींच दो मीटर सा बजट सैसन में इबके थामने पूरी तैयारी त जाणा स :)
Click to expand...
 
jakhar77 said:
There is no harm in discussing them but it should be in positive mood/perspective.

1. If you have a bigger army of public servants, you need a big army to control them. A merger of CVC with lokpal is feasible.
2. There is no power concentration, lokapl will/can be made accountable to the parliament like CAG.
3. If laws were to be implemented, this govt. would have gone long ago. CAG like institution is required which works independantly. You have seen, CAG has brought this govt. to it's feet already in 2G scam.
4. There are checks, parliament can remove lokpal, like CAG and high/supreme court judges. If CAG, EC can work independantly, why not lokpal?

Bad governance makes it more evident that we need an indepandent agency to check corruption. What is the problem in making CBI independant? If CAG, EC are working, CBI can also function.
Click to expand...

Jakhar Bhai,

The need of Lokpal emerged when other investigation agencies are not effective in tackling corruption. Now we are encapsulating ombudsman to tackle the corruption rather than addressing the real cause. Yes I agree that JanLokpal have some points which addresses the shortcoming of current ombudsman but that does come at a significant cost and risk. There are many reasons behind the corruption in existing system. Making some agency independent won't solve the issue of corruption completely. Having said that if you make CBI independent, there are risks associated with it. In some cases, CBI handles very sensitive information pertain to a country which could be Indian diplomatic relations with other countries etc. You got to consider that point of view as well. Now the other issue is bringing everything under one umbrella and having super powers. This is called "Power Concentration". If that is the concept then there is no need of having other governance. Then why do we have State and Centre Government. Why do we have different ombudsman for different sectors. What if Lokpal get corrupt. That means every sector becomes corrupt. Moreover an independent Lokapl might fall into trap of issues like Nepotism, mal-procecution etc. Now if you think that stringent laws can prevent corruption by making fear among bureaucrats then I would disagree with you. There are other issues associated with it. 1. Bureaucrats would hesitate to make calls. and that could hurt the Indian Economy very badly. 2 Draconian Bureaucrats. In my opinion, I would reiterate that its better to address the cause rather than coming with draconian laws which are stressing too much on "cure" and pose a threat to democracy. I would like to cite one of blog:

http://exitopinionpollsindia.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-jan-lok-pal-bill-is-draconian.html

Excerpt from the above blog:

There is a need for the nation to appreciate why Reforms 2.0 is a much superior option than a bill. For starters, their comparative track record should conclusively establish the superiority of the reforms over legislation. Besides, reforms are people liberating while legislation are people stifling.
Data from the real world indicate that societies with greater economic freedom have lower corruption. The differential rates of corruption of Hong Kong and Mainland China are a case in point. Despite capital punishment and draconian laws, corruption rate is much higher for mainland China than Hong Kong. As seen from above freedom from corruption index chart; Hong Kong is far above the world average while India and China are almost at par, this despite China's much "stronger" laws. Why? Simply because Hong Kong has a higher level of economic freedom and for a much longer time.


Accepting this approach does not mean that legislation has no place. All it means that reforms have to be the primary strategy of fighting corruption while legislation plays a secondary complementary role - to act as a deterrent and punish those who break the law. While the Jan Lok Pal Bill exudes a strong political intent of fighting corruption, the fact is, it is a poor solution and if implemented in its current form threatens vibrancy of both governance and the sustainability of economic resurgence:


If you take example of other developed countries like USA, Australia, UK. You find the same observation. And also please check the "Ease Of Doing Business Index". Which reveals about the economic freedom of a country. And also check the associated corruption index of that country.

Ease of Doing Business:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index

Corruption Index:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Example:
Ease of doing business rank :
New Zealand: 3
Singapore : 1

Corruption Perception Index Rank:
New Zealand: 1
Singapore: 5
 
atishmohan said:
Jakhar Bhai,

The need of Lokpal emerged when other investigation agencies are not effective in tackling corruption. Now we are encapsulating ombudsman to tackle the corruption rather than addressing the real cause. Yes I agree that JanLokpal have some points which addresses the shortcoming of current ombudsman but that does come at a significant cost and risk. There are many reasons behind the corruption in existing system. Making some agency independent won't solve the issue of corruption completely. Having said that if you make CBI independent, there are risks associated with it. In some cases, CBI handles very sensitive information pertain to a country which could be Indian diplomatic relations with other countries etc. You got to consider that point of view as well. Now the other issue is bringing everything under one umbrella and having super powers. This is called "Power Concentration". If that is the concept then there is no need of having other governance. Then why do we have State and Centre Government. Why do we have different ombudsman for different sectors. What if Lokpal get corrupt. That means every sector becomes corrupt. Moreover an independent Lokapl might fall into trap of issues like Nepotism, mal-procecution etc. Now if you think that stringent laws can prevent corruption by making fear among bureaucrats then I would disagree with you. There are other issues associated with it. 1. Bureaucrats would hesitate to make calls. and that could hurt the Indian Economy very badly. 2 Draconian Bureaucrats. In my opinion, I would reiterate that its better to address the cause rather than coming with draconian laws which are stressing too much on "cure" and pose a threat to democracy. I would like to cite one of blog:

http://exitopinionpollsindia.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-jan-lok-pal-bill-is-draconian.html

Excerpt from the above blog:

There is a need for the nation to appreciate why Reforms 2.0 is a much superior option than a bill. For starters, their comparative track record should conclusively establish the superiority of the reforms over legislation. Besides, reforms are people liberating while legislation are people stifling.
Data from the real world indicate that societies with greater economic freedom have lower corruption. The differential rates of corruption of Hong Kong and Mainland China are a case in point. Despite capital punishment and draconian laws, corruption rate is much higher for mainland China than Hong Kong. As seen from above freedom from corruption index chart; Hong Kong is far above the world average while India and China are almost at par, this despite China's much "stronger" laws. Why? Simply because Hong Kong has a higher level of economic freedom and for a much longer time.


Accepting this approach does not mean that legislation has no place. All it means that reforms have to be the primary strategy of fighting corruption while legislation plays a secondary complementary role - to act as a deterrent and punish those who break the law. While the Jan Lok Pal Bill exudes a strong political intent of fighting corruption, the fact is, it is a poor solution and if implemented in its current form threatens vibrancy of both governance and the sustainability of economic resurgence:


If you take example of other developed countries like USA, Australia, UK. You find the same observation. And also please check the "Ease Of Doing Business Index". Which reveals about the economic freedom of a country. And also check the associated corruption index of that country.

Ease of Doing Business:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index

Corruption Index:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Example:
Ease of doing business rank :
New Zealand: 3
Singapore : 1

Corruption Perception Index Rank:
New Zealand: 1
Singapore: 5
Click to expand...

All of what you are saying is a propaganda of the corruption syndicate. You might have seen the level to which these people can fall down in the Rajya Sabha choreographed drama.

CBI doesnot handle foreign or diplomatic investigations, it neither is responsible for national security issues. There are several other agencies specially for these tasks, like RAW. IB etc.

There isn't much danger of this power concentration. This propaganda has actually come from the fear of loosing power, which is currently highly concentrated with the political leaders and ministries. Even after lokpal bill, parliament will retain it's supremacy and in the very remote worst case, if something of this sort happens, the parliament can amend laws appropriately. We need not worry about this, we need to only worry about removing corruption which is eating into our lives everyday.
 
Arvindc said:
CBI doesnot handle foreign or diplomatic investigations, it neither is responsible for national security issues. There are several other agencies specially for these tasks, like RAW. IB etc.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bureau_of_Investigation

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is a government agency of India that serves as a criminal investigation body, national security agency and intelligence agency. It was established on 1 April 1963 and evolved from the Special Police Establishment founded in 1941. Its motto is "Industry, Impartiality, Integrity".

Arvindc said:
There isn't much danger of this power concentration. This propaganda has actually come from the fear of loosing power, which is currently highly concentrated with the political leaders and ministries. Even after lokpal bill, parliament will retain it's supremacy and in the very remote worst case, if something of this sort happens, the parliament can amend laws appropriately. We need not worry about this, we need to only worry about removing corruption which is eating into our lives everyday.
Click to expand...

Friend, political intervention is necessary not in all the cases. Yes there is a need to draw a line where it is required and where it is not required. Regarding power concentration, I have already given the arguments about it in my last post. If you bring everything under one umbrella then what is the point of having different ombudsman for different sectors. You just run everything from one point. What is the point behind encapsulating Ombudsman. So going by that logic, later down the track, if lokpal becomes corrupt you will appoint another Lokpal to address the problem. So more encapsulation. I find it wired. Instead of addressing loopholes into current ombudsman, you are trying to create another monster bureaucracy to handle the corruption. Moreover running it from one location with full powers. You are basically risking not only democracy but also using an ineffective of tackling corruption which can turn into a nightmare.

P.S: Please go though the links I have pasted in my last post and try to understand the relationship between reforms and corruption. I hope that substantiate my point of view.
 
Arvindc said:
CBI doesnot handle foreign or diplomatic investigations, it neither is responsible for national security issues. There are several other agencies specially for these tasks, like RAW. IB etc.
Click to expand...
Friend,

I would like to draw your attention to one more link which reveals about 'sensitive cases' handled by the CBI. Yes CBI does not directly handle diplomatic relations but cases related to foreign deals.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/making-scorpene-report-public-will-hit-forei/392941/

Making Scorpene report public will hit foreign relations: CBI


"Disclosure of the CBI report to public will not only be against the interests of the nation but will also adversely affect India's diplomatic relations with the country concerned," CBI director Aswani Kumar said in his affidavit, submitted before the Delhi High Court on Friday last. Terming the report as a "privileged document," the Kumar claimed that some ofthe information were received from foreign nations in confidence and hence the disclosure might affect the relationship of India with them.
 
Last edited:
jakhar77 said:
There is no harm in discussing them but it should be in positive mood/perspective.
3. If laws were to be implemented, this govt. would have gone long ago. CAG like institution is required which works independantly. You have seen, CAG has brought this govt. to it's feet already in 2G scam.
4. There are checks, parliament can remove lokpal, like CAG and high/supreme court judges. If CAG, EC can work independantly, why not lokpal?

Bad governance makes it more evident that we need an indepandent agency to check corruption. What is the problem in making CBI independant? If CAG, EC are working, CBI can also function.
Click to expand...

Jakhar bhai,

Please see the difference between independent JanLokpal and (Independent CAG, Election Commission). Please go through the article which explains how Lokpal can be a threat to Constitution of India. :

http://www.vifindia.org/article/2011/december/26/What-is-The-CBI

The Constitution of India recognises three pillars of the Indian State, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Everything else is ancillary, including the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Chief Election Commissioner, both of whom are constitutionally recognised authorities. In the case of CAG he has complete security of tenure and his office is not subject to any government control. However, it is for government and the Legislature to accept or reject any audit report given by CAG. To that extent the CAG is not the ultimate authority for decision making, with the Executive enjoying the ultimate power to accept or reject the CAG’s report. Similarly, the Election Commission enjoys complete powers in relation to elections, but the Election Commission is also an adjunct to the Executive because the process of holding elections falls within the ambit of executive action. In the ultimate analysis whereas the Lokpal’s accountability will be to Parliament, he is still an adjunct of the Executive because in administrative matters the final decision will lie with that pillar of the Constitution which is the final arbiter, the Executive. The Lokpal cannot substitute for the Executive, he cannot paralyse the Executive and he has to be restricted to his legally mandated powers, which brings us back to all the arguments relating to CBI.CBI is a police force which investigates criminal offences. Corruption is one such an offence. Murder is also an offence which the police investigates. Should the police not be under the superintendence of government? Is murder less heinous an offence than corruption? If the force investigating the most heinous of all offences, depriving a human being of his life, can be under the superintendence of government, why should CBI not be under its superintendence? Regardless of what Anna Hazare and his supporters say, regardless of the nature of the Lokpal Bill, every case of corruption has to be investigated by a police force and every case of corruption has to be tried by a court of law. The Lokpal cannot be investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge himself. The Lokpal agitation cannot be allowed to cause the Constitution of India to collapse or reduce in importance the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Anna Hazare is doing his best to break the Constitution by placing the Lokpal above the three constituent wings of the State. The attempt to wrest control over CBI is a part of this attempt. If Parliamentary democracy is to survive in India, if the Executive is to fulfill its constitutionally mandated role of governing the country, then Anna Hazare must not be allowed to succeed. CBI must be converted into a legally constituted investigating agency which has complete operational autonomy as provided by Chapter XII Cr.P.C, whilst at the same time remaining accountable to government.

P.S: I am just shedding light on the other side of the coin.
 
Very good article on corruption.

[h=1]How About Some Commonsense in Dealing with Corruption?[/h]
Dr. M.N. Buch
Visiting Fellow, VIF



I joined the Indian Administrative Service more than fifty-four years ago in 1957. Government was much less complex then, but we were already into an era of planned development and increasingly the regulatory regime of the British was giving way to a more development oriented but state driven government and economy. It was a transition from empire to republic and we of the IAS were a fairly important part of this transition.One thing, however, was clear. Both the IAS and the IPS were conscious of the fact that they succeeded the elite ICS and IP which ruled British India and that we had a very special role to play in creating a modern state, the foundations of which were both Nehru’s dream of modernity and Gandhi’s roots in the earth of mother India. Because we were inspired by Nehru and because we were made to feel that we were participants in the exciting adventure called nation building our motivation was national service rather than self-seeking greed. Each one of us did his best to leave his charge a little better than when he took over and cumulatively this meant that the administration tried to be people friendly and it certainly was honest. We were greatly helped in this by the fact that our leaders had come through the crucible of the independence movement and were imbued by Gandhiji’s ethics of satya, sadagi and ahimsa, that is, truth, simplicity and nonviolence. Our leadership was austere, basically honest and motivated with a sense of service.All this changed in 1967, when defections resulted in the downfall of elected governments, each defection was paid for and the concept of purchasing power came to dominate our polity. This was the beginning of institutionalised corruption and now it has pervaded every cell of the body politic and virtually destroyed our morality, our sense of values, our ethical government and our individual honesty. No longer are the All India Services motivated by a desire to serve the people, no longer are politicians the vanguard of good government, no longer are institutions bulwarks against anarchy on the one hand and authoritarianism on the other. In the process not only is good governance lost, but also even governance per se has been destroyed. It is as if the capacity to govern has eroded, but more dangerous still it is the will to govern and the desire to govern which seem to have disappeared. Government, therefore, is now more a question of occupying a seat of power, but the desire to use that power for the public good is not in evidence. Once power becomes an end in itself and there is no concern for the public good, then corruption can be the only consequence because it is through corruption that power is purchased. This is the unhappy state in which our republic finds itself today.As young officers how did we function? For one thing there was almost constant on the job training in that our superior officers ensured that we learnt the requirements of the job we had to do, the rules, the past practices and the methods by which the objectives of government could be met. We were supervised at each stage through inspections, discussions and exercise of superintendence over us and there was a constant monitoring of performance. This close interaction with colleagues, subordinates and superiors gave cohesion to the system. This has more or less disappeared. The detailed formal inspection of subordinate officers is hardly ever done, curiosity about one’s job and pride in professional competence are no longer at a premium, rendering of advice to decision makers at political levels is no longer honest, informed or rational because officers vie with each other in feeding the politicians what they could like to hear rather than what they should hear. Under these circumstances the administration is bound to crumple and the results are already visible to all to us.

 
Contd:

I have nine mantras of how we can reform the administration, which I am reproducing below: -


  1. Though we have separation of the legislature, executive and judiciary, legislators will do anything except attend to their legislative duty and instead spend all their time in interfering in the petty details of administration. Officers will do everything other than administering, spending much of their time in petty intrigue. The judiciary, perhaps forced by circumstances into an era of activism, is dabbling more and more in executive decision-making. Therefore, the first and foremost requirement of administrative reforms is to make each branch of government perform its own functions effectively. In other words, make the executive perform.
  2. Because of the blurring of functions the bureaucracy, increasingly, is shying away from decision making. In turn this has diluted accountability and, therefore, implementation of policy is tardy. There must be clear-cut assignment of functions at each level of government and an insistence that each level will perform its assigned duties. Accountability in this case means that there would be no excuse accepted for failure of performance, nor would an officer be let off the hook by pleading that his superiors/politicians or vested interests prevented him from doing his duty.
  3. The civil services, including the police, have to be told that they are servants of laws, rules and regulations and are expected to be impartial and faithful to the laws and the implementation of the policies of government. They are not the personal servants of anyone, including the ministers, they will tolerate no interference in what lies within their own jurisdiction, they will perform their duty according to law and the mandate given to them and they will be judged solely on the basis of performance.
  4. Every level of government from the Prime Minister downwards has to be made accountable, with rewards for good work and swift punishment for failure of performance. In particular the bureaucracy has to be made aware of the consequence of its actions, good or bad, with their actions carrying instant reward and instant punishment. At present no one in India fears consequences therefore the resultant lawlessness, inefficiency and corruption.
  5. In the matter of law enforcement it is only the law which will prevail, a position which must be made very clear to the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police throughout the country. Constitutionally law and order is a state subject, but the All India Services who man the posts of DM and SP are under the disciplinary control of the central government. Criminal law and criminal procedure, however, are included in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule and, therefore, the Government of India does have a role to play even in the matter of law and order. In this behalf we must read Article 256 of the Constitution very carefully because it gives the Union Government the power to give a directive to a state which is not complying with laws which apply to the state, even if the law is framed under List II of the Seventh Schedule and has been enacted by the state legislature. For the sake of convenience I reproduce Article 256 below:“Article 256. Obligation of States and the Union: The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by parliament and any existing laws which apply in the State, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may, appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.”
    What this means is that if the state government fails to maintain order, which it is bound to do under the Constitution and the provisions of Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure which relates to the maintenance of public order and tranquility, then the central government can give a directive to the state government under Article 256. If need be a suitable amendment can be made to the Code of Criminal Procedure under Entry 2, List III, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, specifically empowering the central government to give suitable directives to DMs and SsP in this behalf.
  6. Corruption is a major issue. We all talk of eradicating corruption but no one does anything about it. One of the major factors leading to corruption is the existence of rules and regulations which permit officials to indefinitely delay disposal of a matter before them. What we need is a very quick review, item by item, of all areas of interface between government and the people with a view to simplifying procedures and rules in such a manner that this interface is reduced to the absolute minimum and undue delay and harassment becomes so self evident that penalties can be imposed immediately for such delay. We also need to reinforce the old system of regular inspections by superior officers, with immediate remedial action taking place if it is found that the office under inspection is not functioning efficiently. Today I can state without fear of contradiction that there is virtually no system of inspection functioning anywhere in the country in any department.
  7. Having looked at procedures one can then have an interlocking system in which every superior is made accountable for the manner in which his immediate subordinate is functioning. It would then become the responsibility of every superior officer to ensure that his immediate subordinate works honestly because any dishonesty on the part of the subordinate would bring immediate punishment on the head of the superior officer. In other words, make the official hierarchy at every level work as a vigilance organization. Sporadic raids by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) and other vigilance agencies only scratch at the surface of the problem.
  8. If we are to have accountability, if officers are to answer for the performance and integrity of their subordinates, we must also provide a system of support for people doing their duty. Today we have a system in which officers hesitate to function because the hierarchy is broken down, the corrupt and inefficient develop lateral loyalties and such people are able to muster political support for themselves at the cost of honest officers. This has to change.
  9. Administrative reforms which are not accompanied by a strong political will to curb whimsicality at political levels would be quite futile. I left the Service prematurely because I wanted to prove the point that just as officers are subject to law a Chief Minister is also subject to the same law and he cannot act whimsically or arbitrarily. Most of our present day politicians have the mistaken notion that they are anointed with holy oil and have the divine right to pass any order that they deem fit. Under these circumstances no official can function impartially or according to law. The political masters have a right to change the laws or rules, but so long as these laws and rules are there they cannot ask an official to violate them. A majority of clashes between officers and politicians take place because the politician wants the official to do something which is wrong and the official resists this. He is immediately branded as an obstructionist. Administrative reforms cannot tackle this issue because it is one which the highest political levels have to sort out”.
 
Contd:

The environment in which this paper is written is one in which Anna Hazare and his followers have stridently stated that only a Lokpal in the mould that they have prepared can save us. My submission is that even if a systemic change is made, unless there is a will to govern and unless the instrumentalities of government are brought on line through commonsense measures, no systemic change will work. The Lokpal will soon degenerate into the very corruption which it was created to destroy. This does not mean that an over arching watchdog body should not be created, but it should not be an instrument of witch hunting which paralyses government. In other words, if the administrative reforms suggested are implemented the Lokpal will have no work to do, which is an ideal situation because the system would have cured itself. If such a body is to be created then the Chief Vigilance Commissioner’s office must be abolished and the establishment absorbed in the Lokpal. CBI in relation to prevention of corruption would then form part of the Lokpal set up. The present quibbling over what category of government servants would come under the Lokpal is meaningless because all government servants must then be subject to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal because there would be no other vigilance organisation. At the same time it should be clear that from Prime Minister downwards no one would be accountable administratively to the Lokpal, whose jurisdiction must begin only with a specific complaint of criminality. In other words, administrative decisions must be judged by administrative superiors and not by the Lokpal. This would end the controversy about whether the Prime Minister should be under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. He enjoys no immunity from action if he commits a crime and corruption is a crime. However, the accountability of the Prime Minister for administrative and legislative actions will be to Parliament alone and certainly not to any other authority. This, again, falls within the general definition of commonsense. In the end unless the machinery of government is oriented towards governance we can never have good government, even if Anna Hazare creates a Lokpal at every street corner. This is the message which government must send out in as loud a voice as it can command. Thereafter, government must stand firm and let Anna Hazare do his worst.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top