Was that thing in the Lok Sabha really a debate? Naah...

The debate in parliament on the Lokpal bill suffered from one major deficiency: the fact that it was called a debate.Debate is what you get in Westminster (allegedly our model for the parliamentary form of government), where members speak but ‘yield’ when another member wants to make a point, after which the first MP resumes again. It’s not just civilised but intelligent.But why go all the way to Westminster? A couple of months ago I was invited to judge a debate at one of Mumbai’s premier schools. Boys and girls in their last two years at school (thus generally aged 16 and 17), spoke brightly, sought permission to make points of order, gave strong rebuttals and the usual paraphernalia of debate, but did that with civility and decorum.Are ‘civility’ and ‘decorum’ the two words that readily spring to mind about MPs’ behaviour when Kapil Sibal was making his impassioned defence of the government’s Lokpal bill? The din was unbearable, Opposition members got up continuously in large numbers to heckle him, so much so that Meira Kumar’s usual benign face began to strain around her dimples.At the end of the ‘debate’ – but why fool ourselves, we knew this at the very beginning – it became clear that nobody, and no political party, wanted a strong Lokpal bill. The government’s bill hasn’t given the CBI the much needed autonomy; the Yadavs (Mulayam, Lalu, Sharad) mired it in the irrelevance of minority quotas, undoubtedly a secondary issue; while the BJP showed once again that its policy as the main Opposition is to oppose everything.[caption id="attachment_167775" align="alignleft" width="380" caption="HRD Minister Kapil Sibal speaks in the Rajya Sabha in New Delhi on Wednesday. PTI"][/caption]The obvious reason for this all-pervasive cynicism is that no politician really wants a strong Lokpal because it affects politicians. Anna Hazare’s Jan Lokpal bill is full of large gaping holes, the biggest of which was that it would create an uncontrollable monolithic beast.The Congress’ concern about the CBI was, I imagine, somewhat similar: you have to be wary of a spook agency which has untrammeled powers. Anyone remember America’s FBI under J Edgar Hoover? The man ran secret investigations into even the president by tapping his phone and recording his private conversations (something Hoover could have used to blackmail even the country’s commander-in-chief!)That said, a little give and take from both sides would have resulted in a CBI that would have been effective in doing its job, without any danger that it would run amok.As for Lokayuktas in the states, why are so many political parties hiding under the cloak of federalism? If the Lokpal has to be an effective instrument to fight corruption, it needs strong Lokayuktas in each state. But since Anna Hazare has not talked about it too much, all political parties think it safe to scuttle their formation.Speaking of Anna Hazare, why is it that his agitation at the MMRDA ground in Bandra in Mumbai has succeeded in agitating only Team Anna? “Anna’s fast is not about numbers,” said Medha Patkar. “People were on the roads. They were watching TV” (whatever that means) said Kiran Bedi. “They will come from the second day,” said the optimistic young man who was organising the numbers. The crowd estimate was 5,000 on the first day and much less on the second. And to think that Team Anna rejected Azad Maidan as a venue because “it can hold only 5,000 people”!How did Anna’s team get it so wrong? Did they not gauge the mood of the people? Or did they miss the signals because they are so full of themselves and are so caught up in their own arrogance? Arvind Kejriwal was asked the other day if Aruna Roy could exert similar pressure on the government if she went on a fast. “Yes, sure, provided she can gather 50,000 people,” he said with the cockiness which has now become his trade-mark. So, then, it is about numbers, is it not?The other evening I was the lone Bombay voice on a TV panel discussion dominated by Delhi, two of whom (Shanti Bhushan and Justice Hegde) were Anna Team members. The gist of what they said was this: that members of parliament had lost touch with their constituents, so Anna Hazare and his movement now represented the will of the people. Further, our parliamentary system no longer worked and we should change it for it to more effectively reflect the will of the people. These statements, you will agree, go beyond arrogance into megalomania territory.That’s very much a part of why the crowds in Mumbai have thinned so much. There’s also the question of timing. A huge number of people are asking the obvious question: Why now?Why go on a fast and start an agitation while parliament is in an extended session precisely for the purpose of passing the Lokpal bill? In addition to this, there’s the principle of diminishing returns: an action (like the fast) which might be extremely effective the first time around becomes less effective the second time and by the third time people are asking ‘Again?’So there you have it. A civil society movement driven by ego, political parties driven by self-preservation. Has anyone heard of an old phrase called National Interest?