Why Anna will achieve little with new Bills and laws

By R Vaidyanathan A few young men and women who went to Jantar Mantar to observe a fasting Anna Hazare told me that he was very simple and awesome! For this generation, with its torn jeans and T-shirts, even the fact that an old man can tie a dhoti in the traditional fashion and wear a Gandhi cap and sit cross-legged for so many hours is “awesome”. Anna’s fast was categorised as the start of the second war of Independence as well as a “tilting point in Indian history” by an adolescent electronic media – a media that is less than 20 years old. I told the youngsters that in 1961, the Dowry Prohibition Act was passed by Parliament with lots of fanfare. It was declared “historic” by the then law minister, Ashok Sen, and also Jawaharlal Nehru. Celebrations were held in many cities. Unfortunately, dowry is far from gone. In some ways, the menace has only grown. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was set up by the government in February 1964 on the recommendations of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, headed by K Santhanam, to advise and guide government agencies in the field of vigilance. Consequent on the promulgation of an ordinance by the President, the CVC has been made a multi-member commission with “statutory status” with effect from 1998. [caption id=“attachment_73731” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Many civil society activists are too alienated from their own communities to recognise the Indian reality as it stands. Reuters”]  [/caption] The CVC Bill was passed by both houses of parliament in 2003. Under a government resolution on “Public interest disclosure and protection of informers" dated April 2004, the government made the CVC the “designated agency” to deal with official-level corruption. Each time it was proclaimed as a “historic decision” (the number of historic decisions in our country have been too many to count), but what did we see recently? We selected a CVC, whose CV was not even seen by the Prime Minister, and it was left to the Supreme Court to unseat him. In the case of judges, it was felt that collegiums of judges should appoint other judges to make the system better. We got KG Balakrishnan (whose family members have been accused of owning disproportionate assets) as our chief justice under this “improved” system. We almost ended up with PJ Dinakaran as a Supreme Court judge – but for a vigilant group of legal eagles who blew the whistle. What does all this tell us? It is important for civil society groups and other reform enthusiasts to recognise that Indian society is organised but government is disorganised. In the West, society is disorganised and government is organised. We are a relationship-based society and not a rule-based one. Many civil society activists are too alienated from their own communities to recognise the Indian reality as it stands. Hence they think that what is applicable in the West – from where they get their ideas -  is automatically applicable to India. TN Seshan, the man who cleaned up election management, did not have new laws. But just he knew Indian society. If Acts and Bills could have changed India then we would have become a paradise on earth. I don’t think any other country has such excellent laws and bills. Take, for instance, the Shops and Establishments Act and Rules framed under it by many state governments. If you actually “implement” these laws, all our shops would be closed. The examples can be multiplied. To deal with corruption we should identify the corrupt — name and form are critical in our weltanschauung (world view), not abstract discussions. We need to name and shame individuals who are at the height of power and who hold money abroad. Continues on the next page For instance, we never bother to ask about the role of the spouse, father, mother-in-law and extended family members and the local community in relation to corrupt babus and netas. Why are all these people silent? When shops in England were looted by youngsters it was mentioned — with a lot of agony — that not one family came forward to return the looted goods. It speaks volumes about current British society. It has become a dysfunctional society. Are we in such a situation where the family, or the extended family, or community does not carry any weight in reducing corruption and only government and laws can work? TV experts claim that nepotism and corruption are our two main enemies and wanted Rahul to act on it. They didn’t realise the irony that he was a beneficiary of nepotism in politics. The whole Lokpal/Jan Lokpal exercise has, to some extent, drawn attention away from Bofors, Liechtenstein, Hasan Ali and Swiss banks. I am puzzled that “Team Anna” has never asked for the names of Indians with Swiss bank accounts or questioned Bofors or Liechtenstein beneficiaries when all of these are being argued in courts and in the public domain. This government has sent its law officers to the UK to defreeze a Bofors-related account. Team Anna should ask for that money to be brought back. They want to fight corruption in the “abstract” - which is like interpreting a Picasso painting. Everybody can have a view and have discussions. But no conclusion. Corruption cannot be fought in the abstract. “Team Anna” should concentrate on “name” and “form” instead of just Bills and Acts. Anna and his group should ask for the Liechtenstein and Swiss bank holders’ names instead of being enthused by desk-thumping law-makers. Also read: _Firstpost’_s ebook  People's Movement , a collection of articles that offer a 360 degree view of Anna Hazare’s agitation. The author is professor at IIM, Bangalore. These views are personal.