Who made Lokpal Jokepal?

Shanti Bhushan in his application to the Supreme Court asking to be impleaded in the defamation case against son Prashant Bhushan who stirred up a hornets’ nest by telling a news magazine in September 2009 that at least half of the last 16 Chief Justices of India have been corrupt.

The father-son duo, two of the finest brains in the legal profession, still firmly holds on to this charge. No wonder they have been in the forefront of civil society’s demand for a strong Lokpal Bill, covering from the PM to the judiciary to the legislators to all those who oil the wheels of a corrupt system. A system that has stonewalled this bill for the last 43 years ever since it was first introduced in the 4th Lok Sabha in 1968.

Fast forward to 2011 when the government is being headed by the “most honest” PM Independent India has ever got. The gap between the two calendar years is huge but the difference is same — reluctance. Why should an honest man scheme to muzzle a just demand? The question is baffling but seemingly true. The sequence of events in the last five months in relation to this bill amply bears it out.

Early this year, Gandhian Anna Hazare writes to Congress president Sonia Gandhi and PM Manmohan Singh to allow civil society representatives to be part of a joint committee to draft a stronger Lokpal Bill. Both choose to respond with eloquent silence. Then Hazare launches a fast unto death which captures the imagination of the whole nation, forcing the government to concede.

The fast is called off on April 9 and a Lokpal drafting committee comprising five members of civil society (Hazare, the Bhushans, Santosh Hegde and Arvind Kejriwal) and five central ministers (Pranab Mukherjee, P Chidambaram, Veerappa Moily, Salman Khursheed and Kapil Sibal) is formed. Then the real drama plays out.

A CD tarnishing the image of the Bhushans materialises. Attempts are made to entangle them in a so-called land scam. Ramdev is “used” to question the inclusion of the “father-son duo” in the committee in a bid to drive a wedge between civil society members (Within weeks, the same Ramdev is made to flee his protest venue in a woman’s garb by the very people who “used” him against Team Anna!)

Those behind all this knew the Bhushans were tough customers since the senior Bhushan had been pushing for Lokpal since 1977 when he had presented the bill as the law minister in the Morarji Desai government. Nothing works!

After the CD, it has to be 3D (Delay, Doubt and Diversion). The government comes out in the open and becomes vocal to DELAY the bill, create DOUBT in public mind and DIVERT attention from corruption.

Sibal: “If a poor child doesn’t have any means for education, how will Lokpal help? If the poor need help for medical services then s/he will call up a politician. How will Lokpal help?” 
(One fails to understand how Sibal could mistake a Bill against corruption for that on right to education or medical care. And Anna was within his right to counter, saying if Sibal has no faith in Lokpal, then he should quit the panel.)

Digvijay Singh: “The so-called civil society members have to understand that this is a parliamentary democracy and there is a Constitution. Parliament frames the law, rules and is accountable to the people.”
(Is civil society not part of the people parliament is accountable to? What did the “framers” of law do for Lokpal all these 43 years? Kejriwal was right to explain that civil society was only helping the government in drafting a watertight bill and that passage of it or otherwise was parliament’s prerogative.)

Pranab Mukherjee: “There is a growing trend of undermining the democratic process and extra-constitutional authorities (read civil society) might lead to a complete collapse of democracy.”
(Coming from a leader like Mukherjee, this one is disappointing. Don’t the people of this country have a right to demand when the constitutional authorities fail to deliver? Or, is perpetuating corruption going to strengthen democracy in any way? Please Pranabda, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.)

What crime has civil society committed by making an effort to end corruption? Why is the government unwilling to bring the PM, the judiciary and the legislators under Lokpal? What purpose a Lokpal that leaves out the fountainhead of corruption will serve?

If the PM can be covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, why can’t he be under Lokpal? Is it because in the former Act there’s an exit route which civil society is determined to shut in the latter?

By creating this melee, the government has not only shown its non-seriousness about the issue, but has also ensured that people don’t see the wood for the trees. If Kejriwal made Lokpal “Jokepal” literally, the government did it so practically.