And now to the House

The Lok Pal Bill needs more engaged debate. Don’t expect Hazare agitation to provide it.

The Lok Pal Bill cleared by the Cabinet appears to have at least been a transparently conducted effort to achieve political consensus on the creation of what will be a powerful, statutory institution. Whatever the small print on the law that is eventually being passed, here is the big-picture process that it should follow. Ideas should be solicited by a drafting committee with public engagement; inputs from all parties should be examined by a parliamentary committee; and a final draft of the Bill should emerge from the government, be cleared by the Cabinet, and be taken to Parliament for discussion and a vote. Nowhere in this process, which is democratic, orderly, transparent and effective, can there be a provision for the unreasonable demands of unelected people. Yet the agitation being led by Mr Hazare seems unwilling to recognise that the views of the peoples’ representatives must, in the end, take precedence over their own views. Whatever the merit of the proceedings, and regardless of the amendments that parties within government or members on the floor of the House would bring to the Bill and have passed, Mr Hazare and his associates have already made up their mind: their only real expertise is in noisy, agitational opposition, and they will stick to it.

This is not to say that the Bill that the Cabinet has cleared appears perfect. The appellate process is not clear. While, reportedly, the government has moved for the first time to give the Central Bureau of Investigation greater autonomy, it might not be enough. A director whose selection is genuinely independent will be an important, crucial start; but protection for investigators’ career interests should also be considered. The prime minister’s actions in certain sensitive areas will be kept out of the Lok Pal’s jurisdiction. The principle is clear: a prime minister in office should be largely protected from disruptive investigation, but, once he or she demits office, should no longer be so. Any deviation from this principle should be undertaken only with great care and in the presence of a political consensus. There are two additional questions, brought on by the supposed “constitutional status” of the Lok Pal. First, is this the first constitutional body with reservations earmarked for eternity? Second, will it require a full-fledged amendment of the Constitution? If so, in the absence of agreement from the Bharatiya Janata Party, will not any government-sponsored Lok Pal Bill be dead on arrival?

It is impossible to figure out whether Mr Hazare will be pleased or displeased if a good-faith attempt to create a Lok Pal were, in fact, dead on arrival. It seems that he and his cohorts have convinced themselves that any Bill drafted by the people’s representatives will always be “too weak” — regardless of its content, and because of its origin. As Mr Hazare and his inner circle decamp to Mumbai, taking their show on the road – if Gandhi fasted only in salubrious weather, historians have not mentioned it – it becomes more and more impossible to believe that India’s Parliament should listen much longer to their maximalist, unworkable demands.