The Jan Lokpal concept virtually seeks creation of a whole new bureaucracy at the cost of thousands of crores of rupees in public funds for no ostensible gain
The Jan Lokpal concept virtually seeks creation of a whole new bureaucracy at the cost of thousands of crores of rupees in public funds for no ostensible gain
The government has been obliged to heed the populist demand — first raised by Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal — for a so-called Jan Lokpal (people’s ombudsman) following the beating it has taken on the corruption issue in the past two years, and its anxiety not to face a general election without being seen to be doing something about it.
From this emanates the Union Cabinet’s decision on Thursday to accept 14 of the 16 recommendations by a Rajya Sabha select committee on the Lokpal issue. The authors of the so-called Jan Lokpal idea naively believe creating such an institution will end corruption in high places. Such a notion may not be grounded in reality. Indeed, corruption is likely to invade the Lokpal organisation as well. The truth is that the Jan Lokpal concept virtually seeks creation of a whole new bureaucracy at the cost of thousands of crores of rupees in public funds for no ostensible gain.
The original idea had also sought to create the false god of Lokpal who could hold a sword over the elected Prime Minister. The thought of a government being overturned on the diktat of an unelected Lokpal rather than through a parliamentary vote truly staggers the mind.
The government has now endorsed a version of the Lokpal idea based on the recommendations of a parliamentary committee. The suggestions accepted are of a commonsense variety. It is good, though, that the idea of first obtaining government sanction before an officer above the rank of joint secretary can be prosecuted has been dropped. It is also good that the government insisted on giving officers the chance to be heard before action is initiated against them.
Much has been made of the idea of the so-called autonomy of the CBI. The CBI is, after all, just a police organisation. Giving it autonomy under any pretext can create a Frankenstein’s monster in a democratic setup. But the CBI director of prosecutions assigned to the Lokpal can be freed from political pressure by giving the holder of that office a fixed term. Taking out the provision of lokayuktas in states from the proposed Lokpal law was found expedient to broaden support in Parliament, but the states, in the end, should have their own ombudsman.
Ordinary citizens are hit by petty corruption. A Lokpal isn’t needed for this, but laws ensuring time-bound delivery of basic services will be helpful. Some states have already initiated work on this. To fight corruption at the top, the Prevention of Corruption Act exists, but must be implemented rigorously. But crucially, the law must be changed to prevent criminal elements from entering our legislatures. That is the best safeguard against corruption.
