Why I Support Jan-Lokpal, despite the criticizm

There are discussions everywhere about the anti-corruption movement. Media, office, water-coolers, coffee-shops, mailing lists, blogs, social networks etc., There is a good sized crowd (mostly educated) that is against the movement. I tried to collect some of the questions that I faced when I said that I was a supporter. I will try to answer them here.

Bills are made in parliament through debate, not by arm-twisting and blackmailing.

What is this civil society ? Who appointed them as representatives ? Is there a place for them in democracy ? In a democratic setup parliament is supreme when it comes to making laws, and there is constitution to guide. How can someone draft a law and try to arm-twist the Govt. to pass it in parliament with a suicide threat ?

Apparently, there are several examples of civil society participating in drafting and making laws. N.Ram of Hindu sites 'labor laws' and 'laws related to dowry and women's rights' as examples, where unelected members participated. So, there is nothing new here. Moreover, Govt. itself invited them for participation after the initial protest, and when acceptance of the recommendations of civil society seemed suicidal, they started playing undemocratic, anti-parliamentary cards. No one is questioning the supremacy of parliament. What is being asked is inclusion of certain things in the bill, that would be placed for discussion. If it doesn't get through the houses, or if a group of parliamentarians turn against it, that would be a different issue.

Supporters don't know what all these pals are about. So, the whole movement is stupid.

All these mindless supporters don't know a thing about lokpal or jan-lokpal. They themselves are corrupt. Many of them would have paid bribe at some point of time. Giving bribes is equally wrong, if not more. So, they don't have any moral right to shout in public after paying bribes for years and getting things done for them.

Knowledge of supporters: Is that an issue at all for one to either support or not support a movement ? Does that mean one either supports or doesn't support a movement, based on the clarity of a subset of the current supporters (even if the subset is, say 90%) ? All the information needed to make a decision one-way or the other is out there. There are enough number of forums to post any query and there are enough number of people to interact directly to get any kind of clarification needed. Second question is about supporters being corrupt (by paying bribes). Why a person, who paid bribe, is automatically disqualified to fight against corruption ? Doesn't paying bribe sound like getting victimized !!! For example, if one doesn't pay bribe, one may not get a certain license. And, without that license, one's life would be different. There are no clean and simple systems to fight against that, and still get license without loosing lot of time,money and life in some cases. So, one paid. Now, how does that disqualify one to fight against corruption ? Some would argue, If there are no givers, there wouldn't be any takers. But, if one starts this at individual level, one can't lead a normal life. Hence, the support for such mass a movement.

Dangerous trend. Remember Ramdev episode ?

This is not a good trend. Even if Hazare is a saint, what if someone misuses it ? Ramdev had already tried it with a ridiculous set of demands and there was a huge crowd there as well.

Democratic protests didn't start with Anna and neither would stop with Anna. If the demands are ridiculous, protesters will not get enough support. I did fast along with Anna a few months back. I was against Ramdev. Ramdev's list was not practical, though sounded good. There was no clarity on why he was doing. One can't do fast-unto-death with a demand: 'I want Rama Rajya'. But, Anna's fight is for a law drafted by well known people whose lives are up there for public scrutiny. So, there was no trend. Even if something comes up, that will die a peaceful death, as happened in Ramdev's case.

There are more important issues. Why waste all energy on corruption which can't be eradicated ?

Supporters are not really serious about society and its ailments. While there are so many serious evils in the society, how come corruption has suddenly become such a big problem ?

Corruption has been a problem all the time. There is no specific order among evils. All are evils. But, there is a movement now. There is a solution proposed, which has been scrutinized by many. The next step is to fight for its acceptance. So, why not fight for it ? There is a bill to work against corruption in front of the parliament for the last 40 years, which is not even being discussed, despite several scams in the last couple of years with astronomical figures. So, why not now ?

The sought after bill is not great and doesn't eradicate corruption

What is the guarantee that this bill will eradicate corruption ? We already have so many laws. Do we really need one more ? Will a stronger law really work wonders ?

Jan-lokpal is not a panacea against corruption. As it was mentioned time and again by the group that drafted the bill, it will not eradicate corruption. And, no one has any illusions about it. But, it will bring a strong law with which several corrupt would get caught, and that works as a deterrent for many. The current laws are not enough. That's why the lokpal bill in the first place (40+ years back, but never made it to a law).

Govt. is actually doing a good job. See all those big shots in Tihar. Has it ever happened ?

Why fight against the Govt. that is already taking serious measures ? A bunch of big shots are in jail. Has it ever happened in the history of independent India ?

Yes. That's really encouraging. But, how did those arrests happen ? Did Govt. do anything on its own ? Senior ministers gave clean chit to their colleagues. Even after those scams were open to public scrutiny, those big-shots were stuck to their posts for some years.

That's enough for me to get convinced and support the movement.