Sunday, December 25, 2011

Above Lokpal, do you need a Dharampal, if the Lokpal falters??

My friend asked me this question in his stand to oppose Team Anna and their Lokpal issue. Here is the orignal conversation which broke out between me and my friend on Facebook.

Manish Singh:

The basic reasoning why the role of Civil Society Organizations for Erradication of corruption has been prompted by even the United Nations is that corruption globally is of 'Political' Base. it is obvious that most politicians will vehemently deny this and say 'all politicians are not corrupt', much the same way Pakistan responds the the charge of terrorism.

Do people believe Parliament is going to pass the right Lokpal Bill on it's own ? I see the Lokpal battle go the long way as the freedom struggle did.

Vineet Dubey:
 why do we need lokpal in the first place? And if the Lokpal gets corrupt would you want to get Dharampal?

Manish Singh :
‎Vineet Dubey, Bro, I know you are still our History and Civics teacher's mistake, like I was until job-ex taught me that Corruption in India is was a nice and good word to study in one letter from CMD of SCI. Lokpal could also get corrupt, but to prevent that, a design correction can be applied at policy-framework itself. Transparency principles, and "Dharmapal" effect through means of 'constant conflict between two independent bodies can make Lokpal himself a "dharampal" body. You see, the system of Checks and Balances in a Democratic setup can work only through seeking the path of righteousness, the Dharam, other wise any Democratic Society will meet it's natural death valley. Dharma , or Righteousnes, is searched in the battlefield when two parties war with each other. And two parties get into a genuine war only when they are truely separate. In an eyewash system, the Ruling and Opposition are suppose to be doing this war. But what if at some issue both , the ruling and opposition, become joint. In such case, the system designers of Democracy thought of separating Judiciary, Executive and Legislator. In India, one technical blunder has happened in that Legislator has succeeded in taking control of everything, as the Rank of President is a titular head, appointed through a collegiate of the Legislators, "the politicians"; the Judiciary is recommended-appointed by the legislator,"the politicians"; and the executive heads of all the departments are the legislators"the politicans", in their avtars as the Ministers.In the original British design which we copy, the difference of Republicanism and Monarchy makes the difference. So either we switch to the Presidential Form Design.
Or, make the Gandhi family the monarchs of India, and separate them from Parliament and from contesting elections. and then raise the issue of political Corruption with the monarch-- I guess an Ombudsman will be installed. Monarchy has ensured that this systemic Independence is achieved thoroughly. In India, the constitution has provided for Independence of the Ranks of Election Commission, the CAG, and the body of UPSC--but to the extent of reporting to the head of the state-- the President of India, which is politican-controlled portfolio. CAG has declared a severe loss to exchequer at occasion, but no results have come. The scene is a political equivalent of Jessica Lal Murder, where the murderer is "no-one !!", while a dead body exist died due to shooting in the middle of a party.
 and by the way, the Indepedence of these departments has been ensured by the Constitution of India, by directly regulating in the Constituion, thier functions, appoint procedures, salary methods, financing methods, post-retirement procedures, et al. Thus no law of the government can change that, except by a process of constitutional amendment which requires three-fourth majority. In this regard it is noticable that the parliament arranged to make the Election Commission a three-person body after T N Sheshan become the first Election Commsioner to personally enure fair polls. Election Commissioners before him never asserted their "independance characterstic" already given in the constitution. This is quite a knowledge I read when doing B Com from IGNOU, where I picked up Indian Administration as a subject for second year.
And that's what the fight is around, to give Lokpal a "constitutional status", by the ruling Government. believe you me, I am nearly a Congress guy these days, except here when the righteousness call from with is urging me to look for what is right. Since contitution-ising the Lokpal is going to be more challenging with the opposition not helping the each law while apparently support Team Anna "in principle", clearly the Government and the opposition (both in invisible collusion) is attempting yet again evade the task.

Also notice, Kapil Sibal could dare to talk of limiting the functions of CAG, Mr Vinod Rai, after he wrote an audit report on loss worth 1.76 coror to ex-chequer in the 2G/3G loss. This is not in good virtue for a politician, as it disturbs the prevailing checks-and-balance of the Constitution. Kapil could do so because the apperent knowledge of people of India on the Governance System in not up to the mark. Digvijay singh attempts to hogwash the people by rasing question that "DG Audit says loss is worth 2000coror, CAG says loss 1.76 coror--whom to believe? ". The methods of calculation for a speculative loss on a property may be different, but "is it not important that a very significant loss has happened" --someone ask Digvijay. Apparently , Digvijay is also fooling the already unaware citizens. And P Chidambaram is hiding, while A Raja has been booked by CBI which is until now under Supreme Court directions. Will supreme court rule for ever? and will the corruption be only when the thief is caught otherwise no case of theft will be accepted by the people? Can we not repair our governance system to work right way for itself while we each are busy in earning our bread and butter?

Vineet Dubey
‎Manish Singh, You are as far from logical congruence as i am from dating Deepika Padukone. Dharma is not a war of two parties, Dharma is what you seek within yourself. Raja & Kalmadi are in Jail not because of Lokpal but despite it. Gandhi family has won elections for whatever reasons but this win is not permanent. Nobody can have that guarantee in a democracy.

Vineet Dubey
My premise is as simple as the formula of benzene ring; all constitutional bodies should have segregation of power. Any combination of the power to investigate, legislate and prosecute isnt desirable. Second, a civil body should be above al...l constitutional bodies. Anything else is dictatorship and taking away my liberties, which i will never like to happen. I know your kinds believe in divine intervention, a supernormal body to solve our problems but i cant allow a body like Lokpal, which incidentally is more draconian than AFSPA in Kashmir, to be put in place.
Manish Singh
Now there is the war on How is dharma sought. The circumstances of seeking dharma came when self-interest came in conflict with itself. The kingdom or the killing of Bishm Pitamah? In the parliamentary debates, the opposition is also essen...tially our own citizen group while both the parties fight for citizen welfare. That what is truely sought within is awakening-the enlightenment. This enlightenment aides in seeking dharma from within only but the situation for it arises from a conflict - inside or outside.

Important is that dharma-seekers of Public administration, the researchers, have universally agreed to separation of Judiciary, Executive and Legislature; but separation of Prosecution, and Investigation is not essential for democratic preservation purpose. Infact the Karnataka Lokayukta is already vested with the power to investigate and prosecute. The separation of powers to investigate and prosecute is reasoned, if at all adopted by any state, on the vastness and Specialisation required in each of the two fields. This separation is different from the Democracy mandated separation. Lokpal in itself will be another parallel 'executive' only, although a misleading message is being sent that it will be quasi-judiciary. Civilian body anyway is essential to be put above in all the Democracy institutions. I don't believe in devine intervention which is why I am willing to yet again 'heuristically' repair the system , instead of seeing it as a 'vyawastha' which tends to reject idea of change on call from a single person, no matter that single person is right or wrong.

Manish Singh
the above might also draw you to think about and understand what is conflict of interest. It is a good thing to happen truely except when a person has means to avoid the conflict by trying to achieve both of his interest through those means.... We call that corruption. The best idea in this case is to separate away the custodians of those two interests. Laws like to attain this state. Indian laws have made a mistake at this point.

One of the contentions of the governments is how will a PM defend himself if any frivolous Lokpal prosecute and investigate him. To this a wrong message is being that separation of prosecution and investigation is a Democracy- mandated requirement. But truely, right now too a murder case or a scam case is prosecuted and investigated one body only - the Government. But in truth, such problems can and will be overcome by the design of Lokpal institution which will require to work on transparency principles. The government will anyway have access to all institution to bring evidence in defense of prime minister. Transparency method include date and time logged sequence of events-the log books.
Answer is that

Vineet Dubey
By the nature of your very profession you are groomed to go on long cruise. When you get back to the topic at hand, maybe after 6 months, please do let me know.

Manish Singh
 kar di be-izzati. :-)aur kuch nahin mila toh aise hi nipto-- "Aana is RSS man". :P

Manish Singh
Vineet Dubey, Bro, I just figured that u have suffered an IQ problem! In fact, the question for need for a Lokpal has never been cross-examined by anyone from parliament. U may be unique in that. Of the 543 MPs, maybe 500 will agree to need for Lokpal. And infact this need was felt way back in 1960's itself. your cross-question of "why do we need lokpal in the first place? And if the Lokpal gets corrupt would you want to get Dharampal?" , has no significance because this reasoning could anyway be applied to any law-enforcement that the Parliament would have began to ponder from 1960's itself. The cross-examination u pose has be outrightly rejected in order to take the first step towards Corruption prevention. This cross-examination can find relevance only when the design of the ombudsman office whichever is being imagined is not suited enough to achieve its aim.

Vineet Dubey
thats the usual tactics employed by people who lack arguments... circumvention and discredit the messenger. To reply in the language you understand...Manish Singh some of us went to college for graduation and then did post graduation as well. I understand you have not had the opportunity to go to college and your qualification is still 10+2 with some distance learning graduation thrown in... your work ex too kept you away from humanity in the seas for months at stretch.. for your understanding, the argument is not to be put for any law body, the argument is put cause we have enough law enforcement bodies. get back to basics....i put in two simple premises... Civil body to be supreme and segregation of power within the Indian constitution.. Just tell me how does Lokpal guarantee that and i will be with you.

Manish Singh
‎@Vineet Dubey :The two premise you hold are correct but I think they have less significance to challenge the subject because they are as it is not being infringed. Lokpal will be a civil body in that the highest authority will be 'selected' from a collegiate of people who will, in turn, either be 'elected' or 'selected' or 'publically acredited'. Lokpal will not be a military rank or controller of armed agency- military or police or paramilitary. Investigating power only imply forensic, not law and order control. Neither a secretive control as the design envisages transparency. Further, Lokpal will not be a private institution, but a civil one, as parliament will have power to control finance and removal, - if the Team Anna way , then by simple majority; if the congress way, then by three-fourth majority.
The segregation of power is incidental to any separation of department carried out. Separation may be for 'vastness and Specialisation' purpose, or, 'authoritative take over' of governance. In what way can the Lokpal institution take over government? The judiciary will be independent. Lokpal may sabotage the governance but if the larger section of public feels this, it can anyway be controlled through the parliament. Clean or Dirty MP's, Parliament will exist because elections are under the control of election commission.
the RTI Act has already caused flutter in bureaucrats as they now fear making any entry in any record for the fear of being scrutinized. This fear is being projected in public as 'loss of civil liberty'. But strong Democracys always had RTI equivalents. Are u a taking side of such a propagation?
The civic nature of Lokpal finds no apprehensions otherwise. The 'anshan'-blackmail means of Team Anna is being accused of being undemocratic. Is this situation confusing you to differ A from B.
@Vineet: Please note IQ problems are art type. Any person can suffer them, even if he otherwise have good IQ. My sentence was not aimed to discredit you, but to point to you one observation. Your cross-examination was requiring evaluation in different time and space frames.

Manish Singh
Vineet Dubey: hit it bro! found it why Prosecution and Investigations need to be separated. In case of Grade C employees, say of Passport department, if the PP is not delivered in time, if Citizen 'A' is given to complain the matter to Lokpal, then Lokpal employee 'L' will investigate the PP department employee 'P' . case1: what if the cause of delay is genuine, and employee L is himself corrupt to delay report about P to be made transparent and available to public including citizen A? 'L' may coerce P to bribe him to trouble his future? Case 2: cause of delay not geniune and 'P' shares the bribe received from A with 'L', and in return send report of 'P' as "genuine cause". Who will 'A' go to now? Citizen charter bill has the connection at this point to resolve the tangle.