The Union government’s agreement with civil society activists led by social reformer Anna Hazare — following a 97-hour fast-unto-death staged between April 5-9 by the latter in New Delhi — to constitute a committee with equal representation of government ministers and social activists (nominated by Hazare) to draft a new Lok Pal Bill, is a positive development in the national interest. The brief of the drafting committee is to draw up a new Bill which is a radical improvement upon the toothless Lok Pal Bill which the Congress-led UPA-II government drafted for the approval of Parliament.
In this context, it is pertinent to note that a Bill to appoint an independent Lok Pal at the Centre was first introduced in Parliament 42 years ago in 1969. However with politicians cutting across all political parties and collusive bureaucrats having become accustomed to exercising jurisdiction over all crime investigation and prosecution authorities including the CBI, police, the offices of the attorney general and public prosecutors, the prospect of devolving substantial powers of prosecution upon an independent authority with power to bring ministers, politicians and bureaucrats to book for acts of commission and omission, was quite obviously anathema to members of Parliament.
It’s quite clear that 40 years on, and despite the massive CWG, 2G spectrum, Adarsh Housing Cooperative and thousand unnatural corruption shocks which are visited upon the hapless public by the neta-babu nexus on a daily basis, the country’s overweening politico-bureaucratic conspiracy is still unwilling to establish independent ombudsmen at the Centre and in the states. For the simple reason that it would mean the beginning of the end of their open, continuous and uninterrupted loot and plunder of the economy and public. That’s why this corrupt conspiracy has been raising all sorts of issues ranging from Hazare’s moral blackmail, constitutional illegality of the Lok Pal Bill drafting committee and the allegedly tainted character of some civil society activists on the drafting committee.
But while by strict interpretation of law there may be some merit in the arguments advanced by government and establishment apologists, there’s no gainsaying that extraor-dinary challenges necessitate extraordinary response. And the extraordinary challenge which if not confronted squarely could well spark an anarchic revolution within the republic, is the Godzilla of corruption which has grown so big, it threatens the country’s institutions of democratic governance.
In the circumstances, although there may be some truth in the allegations made against legal luminaries Shanti and Prasanth Bhushan, nominated by Hazare to the drafting committee, it’s important to bear in mind that the Bhushan duo has been nominated as impassioned legal experts committed to this cause rather than pristine pure citizens. Hence the weight of public opinion should be behind them as they discharge their time-bound duty (the new Bill has to be ready by June 30) to draft an effective Lok Pal Bill which will be the first battle won in the imminent war against ubiquitous neta-babu corruption.
Paramountcy of rule of law principle
An affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on April 14 by Sanjiv Bhatt, deputy commissioner of intelligence of the state police in Gujarat in February 2002 when the state was convulsed with widespread anti-Muslim riots in which over 2,000 people were killed, has profound implications for democracy and rule of law in 21st century India. In his sworn statement, Bhatt — a senior elite IPS (Indian Police Service) officer — has stated that at a meeting of police and law and order officials convened in Gandhinagar on February 27, 2002, chief minister Narendra Modi had directed the police to allow Hindu mobs to “vent their anger” against Gujarat’s minority Muslim community following the alleged arson of a railway coach by a Muslim mob at Godhra station in which 59 Hindu pilgrims were burnt to death.
This solemn statement made under oath in the country’s apex court by Bhatt who claims to have been present at the February 27 meeting, confirms the worst suspicions that a large section of the intelligentsia has nursed about Modi’s complicity in the anti-Muslim pogrom that racked Gujarat during the period February 28-March 3, 2002. Although filed belatedly, this affidavit of a senior IPS officer which corroborates the evidence given to the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigative Team by former director general of police R.B. Sreekumar and former BJP minister Haren Pandya (to a citizens’ enquiry committee), raises grave legal and constitutional issues which need early resolution.
Modi’s alleged complicity by way of acts of omission, even if not masterminding the dreadful pogrom of 2002, has become a matter of national importance not only because of the scale of the tragedy, but also because since then he has been twice re-elected chief minister of this western seaboard state (pop. 60 million) for consecutive terms following overwhelming victories in the state’s legislative assembly elections. Undoubtedly Modi’s electoral success in this high-growth, business-savvy state has been driven by his excellent business and economic development policies supported by clean administration which have enabled the state’s GDP to grow by 12 percent annually with agriculture output growth recording 9 percent in 2010-11 against the average 4.5 percent national growth rate.
Yet while there’s no doubting Modi’s proven development and administrative capabilities and also conceding the point that the chief minister seems to have been converted to the cause of communal harmony since then, the structure and grammar of democratic governance and the rule of law mandates that he is prosecuted and punished for his criminal acts of omission and commission in 2002. Although this would be a setback for the majority in the state who have re-elected and implicitly forgiven him for his suspected complicity in the pogrom, the principle of rule of law must take precedence over all other considerations. To fudge the issue in the interest of the greater good of the greatest number, would not only perpetuate the injustice suffered by Gujarat’s minority Muslim community, but also severely damage the foundations of Indian democracy in which the rule of law is — or should be — paramount.