Click to play videoKaran Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate. After sharp differences have emerged between Anna Hazare's team and the government over the Lokpal bill, what are the principles that determine it's content? That's the key issue I shall explore today with National Advisory Council member Aruna Roy.
Aruna Roy, let's start with the principles you believe should determine the content of the Lokpal bill, and let's begin with those to do with the ambit and the jurisdiction of the bill, Anna Hazare on the one hand and the government on the other seem to have sharp differences. To begin with, should the Prime Minister and his office be part of the jurisdiction of the Lokpal bill?
Aruna Roy I definitely think so, because the Prime Minster heads many ministries, apart from being the head of the government. So I do not think as the head of the Executive, he can be, there can be some checks and balances of course, but I can not envisage Lokpal Bill leaving the Prime Minister out.
Karan Thapar: What about the argument put forward by two Chief Justices of India, Justice Verma and Justice Venkatachaliah, the Prime Minister is the head of the government, if he becomes dysfunctional, the government will collapse, and secondly, he's the international face of the country. For both these reasons, they argue, the Prime Minister should be exempted from the Lokpal.
Aruna Roy: I don't think that the Prime Minister can be exempted from the purview of the Lokpal bill, but certainly some aspects of his work, which may in fact deter or delay or stall activities, one can examine and look at. Unfortunately, in all these issues, the public and people concerned have not really looked at the details. And the devil always lies in the details!
Karan Thapar: What are the sort of aspects of his work that you think could be excluded?
Aruna Roy: Maybe some dealing with security, maybe some dealing with other issues which will one have to look at the entire list of what he does and then look at what we can keep in and what we can't.
Karan Thapar: What about a further check, that although the Prime Ministers office are within the purview of the Lokpal, investigations cannot be undertaken without getting the concurrence of an entity like the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Would you approve of that?
Aruna Roy: If we bring in prior sanction, then we enter into another domain, and even that will have to be examined and I don't quite agree with that sanction being needed. Especially in a case of corruption.
Karan Thapar: So, no prior sanction, but there can be certain areas like national security, which are excluded?
Aruna Roy: Yes, and some others. We will have to have a look at the list of his functioning.
Karan Thapar: In other words, your taking a position that was suggested by Pranab Mukherjee in his letter to the chief ministers, where he said yes but with exclusions?
Aruna Roy: There will be some but not all exclusions and what will be excluded maybe a matter of big debate.
Karan Thapar: Okay, so these exclusions have to be very carefully considered?
Aruna Roy: Yes.
Karan Thapar: A second area of difference between Anna Hazare's team and the government, is over the question where the High Court and Supreme Court judges should fall within the purview of the Lokpal. What's your answer to that question?
Aruna Roy: Actually I think, that there must be independent scrutiny of all institutions. The question is whether that independent scrutiny should come within the Lokpal or not? The debate is not whether there should be scrutiny. And, there is an argument being proffered, I think that needs to be looked at in more detail again.
Karan Thapar: But, now here, you are taking a very different position to the one you took earlier on the Prime Minister's issue. Here, you are saying that there should be scrutiny of judges, but it's open to question whether the Lokpal is the right of authority to do it? In other words, you could do this through a good, severe, strict judicial accountability bill?
Aruna Roy: You could, because independence of the Judiciary has to be maintained for some kind of sanctity, constitutional sanctity. So, one will have to look at it again and revisit the whole business.
Karan Thapar: In other words, here you have an open mind but you are also , at the same time, open to the idea that if you have a good judicial accountability bill, that could be the mechanism for scrutinising the judiciary?
Aruna Roy: Accountability and Standards bill, yes.
Karan Thapar: Okay, a third area of difference between the government and the Anna Hazare team is over the question where the MPs, particularly their voting and speaking in Parliament, should be subject to the purview and the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. What's your answer to that?
Aruna Roy: I think it should be under scrutiny, why not?
Karan Thapar:… Well at the moment Article 105 (2) of the Constitution grants them immunity, which was in a perverse sort of way, confirmed when the Supreme Court gave its verdict in the JMM case way back in '98-'99. So untill now the practice and the theory is that what they do or say in Parliament is excluded, you're saying that needs to be revised?
Aruna Roy: On issues of corruption. Only on issues of corruption because the Lokpal deals with issues of corruption.
Karan Thapar: Well, there was an allegation of corruption against the JMM MPs and remember that the Supreme Court with the proviso, that bribe givers not takers were guilty. The Supreme Court excluded MPs on the grounds that you can't go into the motive behind of how they voted, or why they voted. You are now saying, that infact, what they do in Parliament, will still come under the scrutiny of the Lokpal.
Aruna Roy: On issues of corruption.
Karan Thapar: On issues of corruption.
Aruna Roy: Yes.
Karan Thapar: So, that would involve a change in the constitution?
Aruna Roy: Well one will have to examine what it is.
Karan Thapar: But, is it wise to put a clause into the Lokpal or a principle into the Lokpal bill that actually requires a Constitutional amendment? The government of today may not have the capacity change the Constitution.
Aruna Roy: Actually, if we look at the number of times the Constitution has really been changed, for the better sometimes, and maybe for the worse sometimes. One will have to look at whether it will decrease corruption or not decrease corruption.
Karan Thapar:So, in itself, changing the Constitution is not obstacle that should deter?
Aruna Roy: How can I say that when the Constitution's been amended so many times.
Karan Thapar:Let's come to other differences between the government and Anna Hazare. This time not to do with the jurisdiction of the proposed Lokpak but the powers of the Lokpal. Anna Hazare envisages the Lokpal which would have, not just the power to investigate, but to prosecute, to recommend, and in some cases even force punishment to redress grievance. In addition, it would have to search at will any office, or home, that it deems fit and also to issue instructions to institutions to change their working practice. Some people say that is just too much power for one single body.
Aruna Roy: So long as these institutions exist, the Lokpal cannot function without investigative powers. It cannot. So long as these are independent areas of functioning, the Lokpal will need them. The real problem is, the challenge is, to look at how it will function and to look at the details of how it will function. In any case, judgments are given outside the purview of the Lokpal, there will be special courts created for it. But, the question will be, will they be independent? Will they be independent of the overall powers that you give the Lokpal?
Karan Thapar: I think for many people the key issue is this, should the same one entity, the Lokpal, have both powers to investigate as well as the power to prosecute? Or should a different entity be responsible for the prosecution?
Aruna Roy: Provided those two entities are independent of each other and are independent functioning departments, it's okay. One will have to see how it's envisaged. One of the critical problems of this entire debate is that these details are not clear.
Karan Thapar: But, the assumption that you are making is that provided these can be independent departments of the same Lokpal and truly independent, then it's okay for the same Lokpal to have both functions. But do "Chinese walls", as they are called in the West, really operate in India? Don't "Chinese walls", forgive this colloquialism, have chinks in them?
Aruna Roy: But the point is, if the Lokpal doesn't have its investigative mechanism, it cannot work.
Karan Thapar:But does it need a prosecuting role as well?
Aruna Roy: That could be debated. We can see whether it needs a prosecuting role or not. My problem is with the Lokpal, is that it's not been adequately discussed. You are asking me for an opinion, I don't mind giving you off the cuff opinions, but we do not know the debates that are going on. My primary concern, even with the principles, is that they are adding grievances.
Karan Thapar: I will come to grievances as it's an important issue, but just to get clarity, if I understand your answer correctly, you are not committed to the position that Anna Hazare's team is committed to, that both prosecution and investigation must be done by the same Lokpal. You are quite happy for the Lokpal to be involved in investigation, but a different entity to take up prosecution when necessary. You are happy for that you need a further debate.
Aruna Roy: I am not saying I'm happy or unhappy. I'm saying I need to understand the issue further before I offer an opinion.
Karan Thapar: Okay. Now, the Lokpal envisaged by Anna Hazare actually goes considerably further. They also see the CVC, the Central Vigilance Commission, coming under the supervision of the Lokpal and they want the Anti Corruption wing of the CBI to function under the Lokpal. Many say that could end up creating a leviathan. Do you share that fear?
Aruna Roy: I do think that the CVC should be outside the Lokpal's jurisdiction but it should have the powers to investigate and it should not have prior sanction, which it has today. It has to be empowered.
Karan Thapar: Quite right, empowered, autonomous but outside. What about the Anti Corruption wing of the CBI?
Aruna Roy: The Anti Corruption wing of the CBI, we will have to see how it function within the ambit of the Lokpal. What its role will be? And how independent it will be from the Lokpal itself, because the Lokpal itself may have to have its own set of accountabilities.
Karan Thapar: In other words, here you want to know more before you pronounce an opinion?
Aruna Roy: Yes, definitely.
Karan Thapar:Lets then come to an issue you touched on a moment ago, grievances. The Anna Hazare Lokpal extends its mandate not just to cover corruption, but also to redress grievances, which many people believe gives it an opening into the whole area of maladministration and could result in so much work that the Lokpal might collapse under the burden of the tasks it has to take on. Do you think the Lokpal should be restricted to corruption only, or should extend to grievance therefore, maladministration?
Aruna Roy: I thin the Lokpal should concentrate on high level corruption, an area which is completely outside the purview of all existing bodies. Grievance redressal, is an issue which needs to be tackled bottom-up, because it concerns very small issues, very critical issues for very poor people.
Karan Thapar: This is a clear difference between you and Anna Hazare's views?
Aruna Roy: And the government of India, because that doesn't have any problem with grievances being included in the Lokpal bill.
Karan Thapar:Well we don't really know the government's position on whether grievances should be included or not. The government hasn't really revealed it's hand. But just to sum up, you're also saying that its high level major corruption that the Lokpal should go into, not everyday common petty corruption.
Aruna Roy: I don't think that that body will be able to deal with it because the nature of the Lokpal is top-down, whereas, local grievances have to dealt with bottom-up. You cannot, in this present system, give too much power to an individual who represents the Lokpal at the grass-root. Maybe the Sub-divisional level, with enormous powers.
Karan Thapar: Alright, you clarified for me certain significant areas, where you are in agreement with Anna Hazare, such as the fact that the Prime Minister's Office must come under the purview, MPs must come under the purview; areas where you have reservations such as to do with Judges, or to do with the CVC, or the CBI Anti Corruption wing. And, you have a major difference over grievances. Anna Hazare's team is insistent that the draft of the Lokpal bill must be finalised by June 30 and the government seems to have agreed with that, but given that we have only 25 days left and as yet they are still arguing over principles, they haven't even come down to details, is this a realistic deadline?
Aruna Roy: The joint committee has not opened it's doors to any public consultations so far. And, I do not think that a law of this nature can go through without genuine public consultation on the principles and on the content of the law. So, I don't see how this process can be cut short. It's a very important process.
Karan Thapar: In fact, Anna Hazare, not only wants the drafting to finish but the end of June, June 30, but he's insistent that the Parliament must pass the bill into law by August 15, otherwise he will resume his Dharna at Jantar Mantar. Now given, that the monsoon session only begins in the second week of July, that barely gives Parliament four weeks to discuss one of the most important Constitutional bills, possibly constitutional amendments the country will see. Is it fair to impose those deadlines on Parliament? …
Aruna Roy: I would say is it fair to the people of India, to so many intelligent people of so many opinions on the law, not to be heard once before the law is finalised.
Karan Thapar: So you throw these deadlines out of the window?
Aruna Roy: I don't. I say that the process is more important than a date.
Karan Thapar:The process is more important than a date, which means don't set deadlines?
Aruna Roy: There has to be a time limit.
Karan Thapar: But not a deadline of August 15, for example?
Aruna Roy: I don't know, maybe we can do it before August 15, if they go all out and have so many consultations.
Karan Thapar: Mrs Roy let's approach this issue of civil society and the Lokpal bill a little differently. Should the government have included people like you and Harsh Mandir, who've been involved in the working of the Lokpal in the NAC? Who have deep interest in the subject in the joint drafting committee?
Aruna Roy: I think Harsh and I have several platforms and we are members of many campaigns, and we have enough space to make our comments. I don't think either of us wither want to be in the joint drafting committee nor expect to be in it.
Karan Thapar: What about the government's exclusion of other voices and other people whose opinions should be heard? At the moment it is just the government and Anna Hazare and the rest of civil society has no role to play. Should the government be reaching out to multiple voices?
Aruna Roy: I think it should because I've never really heard a better set of intelligence responses than I have read and heard in the last one-and-a-half month. And it makes me proud to be an Indian.
Karan Thapar: So in other words, the drafting of the Lokpal bill must not be a closed shop venture between the government on the one hand and five members from Anna Hazare's side on the other?
Aruna Roy: Actually no drafting of any bill should be restricted to a small group. It should discussed in the public domain with large numbers of people. It's only then that you get the best.
Karan Thapar: So its essential that the government reach out to the people very quickly?
Aruna Roy: Ya, it looks as if there is very little time.
Karan Thapar: Now these days, far from reaching out to people, the government is repeatedly saying that there are serious differences in civil society over the Lokpal issue. Is that inevitable and natural in a country of 1.3 billion or does it vitiates and undermines civil society?
Aruna Roy: In a country that claims to have a very large intelligencia, its inevitable that there will be very intelligent perceptions, which maybe different. And I think its not vitiating but is just the right to freedom of expression of opinions and ideas, which may, infact, be different.
Karan Thapar: So, the government shouldn't try and score points by pointing this out.
Aruna Roy: Certainly not.
Karan Thapar: Let's come to Baba Ramdev, who has started a fast-unto- death with thousands standing there watching him at the Ramlila grounds in Delhi. Do you support his fast-unto-death? Or do you have serious conerns about his political affiliations as well as his business empire?
Aruna Roy: I do not support his campaign. I am not part of it. And I certainly have a very strong position on any kind of communally tinged campaign. I think corruption should draw people in from all walks of society and across the board. You can't have one particular group of people, so I have nothing to do with the community of people who have a leaning towards a certain kind of religious space.
Karan Thapar: So you do not support Baba Ramdev's campaign?
Aruna Roy: I don't.
Karan Thapar: What about the fact that Baba Ramdev began his fast on Saturday by inviting Sadhvi Rithambara there on stage with him. She's not only a person who is an accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case, but many people remember her by the communal things she was saying, the communal speeches she was making? Is she a suitable supporter of a campaign against corruption?
Aruna Roy: Corruption means , to me, many more things than financial corruption. Its also a lack of allegiance to the Constitutional notions of equality and rights within the Constitution, which she has defied.
Karan Thapar: Justice Hedge said publicly it doesn't matter that Sadhvi Rithamabara is an accused in the Babri Masjid case or the she has been communal in the things she's said and done, if she is against corruption her support is welcome. You disagree with that interpretation, don't you?
Aruna Roy:I wouldn't agree with that.
Karan Thapar: What about Baab Ramdev's fast-unto-death? Earlier Anna Hazare took a fast-unto-death. In a democracy, is that an acceptable form of protest? Or is it unjustifiably coercive?
Aruna Roy: In India, fast-unto-death has been an accepted mode of protest since Mahatma Gandhi. And I don't think it's coercive, no more than wielding all kinds of caste and other issues; and making life miserable for existing governments. No, I don't think so.
Karan Thapar: And what about finally the governments response to Baba Ramdev? The Prime Minister wrote personally letters, emergency meetings of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Committee for Political Affairs were held, four ministers went to the airport when he arrived in New Delhi, as if he were a visiting head of state, and the general mood created by the government suggests that they are desperate, perhaps that they are in panic. Is that n acceptable, suitable, dignified way for the government to behave? Or do you think they are bending at the knee?
Aruna Roy: I think it is appeasement because I remember when 25,000 tribals came to the same Ramlila grounds, not a single official came to meet them when they wanted to express their point of view.
Karan Thapar: When you say appeasement, does that also suggest the government is scared of Baba Ramdev?
Aruna Roy: I don't know why it's doing it. We will have to look at it, but its certainly appeasement.
Karan Thapar: Is this a major mistake by the government?
Aruna Roy: We will have to question the government about why it has appeased, why it wants to appease people like Baba Ramdev.
Karan Thapar: The government is appeasing Baba Ramdev?
Aruna Roy: That's what it appears to be.
Karan Thapar: Mrs Roy, a pleasure talking to you.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
More on IBNLive Right Now
TOP NEWS
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
