The kind of man, we need in the political system.

"District collector, U. Sagayam of Madurai, Tamil Nadu - By refusing to take bribes, the Madurai collector has earned 18 transfers in 20 years, a modest house and bank balance and lots of respect"

Three years ago, as district collector of Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, U. Sagayam voluntarily declared his assets: a bank balance of Rs 7,172 and a house in Madurai worth Rs 9 lakh. Once, when his baby daughter, Yalini, who had breathing problems, was suddenly taken ill, he did not have the Rs 5,000 needed for admitting her to a private hospital. At that time he was deputy commissioner (excise) in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, and there were 650 liquor licences to be given out. The going bribe for each was rumoured to be Rs 10,000.

(He needs a special mention here because the assets of an IAS officer-couple in Madhya Pradesh were valued at Rs 360 crore. They had 25 flats in three cities)

'Reject bribes, hold your head high', says a board hanging above Sagayam’s chair in his modest office. That’s the code he lives by, even if politicians are incensed they cannot bend him their way—he’s been transferred 18 times in the last 20 years—and has made enemies of both superiors and subordinates. “I know I sit under a dangerous slogan and probably alienate people,” he says. “But I have been the same Sagayam from Day 1. Standing up against corruption is not for a season. Nor is it a fad. It’s forever”, he says.

On a hot summer afternoon, on Madurai’s busy main road, the district collector, U. Sagayam, saw a young man talking on a cellphone while riding a motorbike. He asked his driver to wave the man down, got down from his car and meted out instant punishment: plant 10 saplings within 24 hours. Somewhat unconventional justice, some might say. But that’s how Sagayam works.

He also took on a mighty soft-drink mnc when a consumer showed him a bottle with dirt floating in it. He sealed the bottling unit and banned the sale of the soft drink in the city. In Chennai, he locked horns with a restaurant chain and recovered four acres valued at some Rs 200 crore.

Sagayam’s masters degrees in social work and law come in useful in his role as an administrator. He knows the rulebooks in detail and is not afraid of using them, however powerful the opponent. No wonder then that Sagayam’s career is marked with the scars of countless battles.

Sagayam’s wife Vimala has stood by him all these years but she was rattled by some of the threats during the elections. “He always says if you are right, nobody can hurt you,” she says. “But sometimes it becomes difficult.”

Sagayam says he learnt honesty on his mother’s knees.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?277990
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/article2768382.ece

Want to change the goverment, change the world???

There are always problems in the world, and the world has always been there, and the world will remain there. If you start working out: changing circumstances, changing people, thinking of a utopian world, changing the government, the structure, the economy, the politics, the education, you will be lost. That is the trap known as politics.

That's how many people waste their own lives. Be very clear about it: the only person you can help right now is you yourself. Right now you cannot help anybody. This may be just a distraction, just a trick of the mind. See your own problems, see your own anxieties, see your own mind, and first try to change it.

It happens to many people: the moment they become interested in some sort of religion, meditation, prayer, immediately the mind tells them, "What are you doing sitting here silently? The world needs you; there are so many poor people. There is much conflict, violence, aggression. What are you doing praying in the temple? Go and help people."

How can you help those people? You are just like them. You may create even more problems for them, but you cannot help. That's how all the revolutions have always failed. No revolution has yet succeeded because the revolutionaries are in the same boat.

The religious person is one who understands that "I am very tiny, I am very limited. If with this limited energy, even if I can change myself, that will be a miracle". And if you can change yourself, if you are a totally different being with new life shining in your eyes and a new song in your heart, then maybe you can be helpful to others also, because then you will have something to share.

OSHO

How to Join AAM AADMI Party (AAP)

Woman who stalled Rs 5000 cr corrupt irrigation projects

Bureaucracy hits back at Anjali Damania by taking away her 59-acre farm, but she remains undeterred. Truly, todays Jhansi ki Rani, Laxmibai.

 

 

On Friday last week, when 42-year-old pathologist Anjali Damania received a government order informing her that she had lost ownership of a 59-acre farmland she had so lovingly nurtured for close to 18 years, it just brought a wry smile to her face. What is 59 acres for a woman who has stalled irrigation projects worth over Rs 5,000 crore across the state and who has become the pivot in a struggle against a corrupt system that lets project costs escalate to help contractors make obscene amounts of money.

    The forfeiture of her farm was the system hitting back at her, hoping she would get scared and abandon the movement. But on Monday, when this correspondent met Damania at her residence, it did not look like she was afraid or was contemplating laying down arms.

    Activism was thrust upon this softspoken mother of two who till a year ago led a comfortable life, dividing her time between the farm, her medical practice and foreign holidays.

    Farmers' rights, human displacement, cost escalation in government projects and land acquisition were phrases she had read in the passing in newspapers and heard on evening TV news.

    She was just trying to save her land in Karjat which was to be acquired for the construction of a dam when she stumbled upon papers that showed how dams that would displace thousands of people and destroy acres of cultivable land were cleared in a matter of weeks. The papers also revealed how project costs were increased manifolds just days after a contractor bagged the project.

    The first set of figures that she managed to get hold were shocking. The cost of Kondhane dam, for which the government had sought to acquire her farm, had jumped from Rs 56 crore to Rs 328 crore barely a month after the contract was awarded. That's a cost escalation of nearly 600 per cent. Of course, this was done because a local elected representative demanded that the dam height be increased from 39 meters to 71 meters.

    Damania's struggle, which has spurred several activists to question cost escalation in irrigation projects across the state, started in May last year when she was told her 30-acre farm in Kondhane, Karjat would be have to acquired for a dam project. When she met local irrigation officials, they confirmed that such a project was being planned, but that the same had still not moved even to the drawing board stage. A complacent Damania went on a month-long holiday with her family.

    It was big mistake. When she returned, she found out that the project had been approved, tendered and a contractor appointed.

    Her immediate reaction was to save her farm that she had grown so attached to. Soon, project coordinators approached her to acquire the land. "They kept increasing the price thinking that I was acting like any other landholder trying to get the best deal. Frankly, I was like any other landholder, ignorant about my rights and how to protect them," she said.

    When pressure increased, Damania decided to sleuth around. She sought documents pertaining to the dam under RTI from the irrigation department. The first lot of basic documents revealed the shocking jump in construction costs. The documents also revealed that the project report was prepared, tender floated, and a contractor appointed in less than a month. This is when she realised something was amiss.

    At this juncture, Damania decided to get to the bottom of the issue and met up with several residents from other areas in Maharashtra where similar dam projects were proposed. "To my utter shock, it was the same story everywhere. Identical clutch of contractors bid for the projects everywhere. Contracts were awarded within days. At times, tender notices were published in newspapers a day or two after the project had already been awarded. Barely a month after the contract was awarded, scope of work was increased and cost went up manifold. None of the contractors were capable or technically sound to handle such huge projects," said Damania.

    This is some of the additional information that Damania was able to unearth. The cost of Kalu dam in Thane district had jumped from Rs 640 crore to Rs 1400 crore soon after the work was allotted. Similarly, the cost of Balganga dam in Pen jumped from Rs 420 crore to Rs 1,320 crore and for Shai dam the cost rose from Rs 410 crore to Rs 1,339 crore.

    As Damania began nosing around more, she started getting threat calls at her residence. Her family of stock-brokers freaked out. Her father-in-law issued an ultimatum - she would not be allowed to put everybody at risk for her work. "Fortunately, a few days later a television channel was featuring a programme on farmers' plight in a region where a big dam hadn't taken off as planned. Suddenly, my father-in-law turned towards me and told me that I should go all out after the scam and expose it to help poor farmers."

    She now began seeking documents pertaining to specific contractors and projects and it became more difficult to break through the bureaucracy. She was given lame excuses by irrigation department for not giving out documents. Her appeals under RTI Act went unheard. And when she eventually confronted Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation babus in their offices, she was told that the documents were nowhere to be found. "I just sat there and told them that I would not budge till I get my papers. I was scared that they will book me on some false pretext so I alerted my friends and India Against Corruption volunteers, who joined me in large numbers. Finally, at 7 pm the officials opened the cupboards and allowed me to take whatever I needed and photocopied them for me," she said.

    Armed with several relevant documents, she met Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan in May this year, who stayed work on Kondhane dam and asked his officers to prepare a white paper on the state's irrigation projects. Work on several other dams, where she had been able to expose the nexus between bureaucrats and contractors, was stalled too. Earlier this year, she filed a Public Interest Litigation at the Bombay High Court.

    Just when Damania thought she was going strong in exposing corruption in irrigation projects, the system hit back. Damania received a notice from the tehsildar in Kondhane stating that she would have to surrender all the parcels of land that she had bought in the last 18 years. The reason cited was that since all these land parcels, barring one bought in 1994, were agriculture plots, only a farmer could buy them.

    Damania tried to prove that her first plot she bought from a cultivation company in Mahagaon, Raigad, was non-cultivated but fertile land. Over the years she and her husband had started cultivating it. "I showed them photographs of my land. I tried asking them as to why they took 18 years to realise that my first acquisition was illegal. I was obviously being targeted to get me off the case," Damania alleged.

    Of course, all her arguments were rejected. On Friday, she received a final order stating that all her land had been acquired by the state.

    Damania's resolve to fight against corruption hasn't diminished. She still continues to dig up documents on various other under-construction dams in the state.

Watch the faces of 15 corrupt ministers against whom Anna is seeking SIT Investigation. Click the link.

https://www.box.com/s/f04abb7553a4734ecb70

Sadhguru on watching the performance of our MLA's and Councillors

I don't want people to treat me has a Saint, otherwise they will just come, to bow down to me and will not do any work. Anna Hazare.

An Article on how to file RTI Act (Right To Information)

RTI How to get information

Any citizen of India who desires to obtain any information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 may make a request to the Public Information Officer/Assistant Public Information Officer, preferably in the application format, in writing or through electronic means.

Keep three things in Mind,

1) Attach a court fee stamp of rs.10/- with every RTI application. In case of filing RTI in a central govt office, attach a postal order of Rs.10/- instead of court fee stamp. This fee is exempted for below poverty level people. but for that you have to attach BPL certificate.

2) It is necessary to have an extra copy of the application on which the public information officer will give you stamp of his dept and write 'copy received'. this will a proof of application filed.

3) Public Information Officer (PIO) is supposed to give the demanded information within 30 calender days.

You can file an appeal to his senior Information officer if information is not received in 30 days/ information received is incorrect or partial. Do not forget to mention in the appeal to fine the PIO. Law prescribes Rs. 250/- per day fine for the PIO if the information is not received within the prescribed time.

APPLICATION FORMAT FOR INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005 To The Public Information Officer/ Asstt. Public Information Officer

Application under RTI Act 2005

• Name of the applicant:

• Address of the Applicant:

• Subject of Information:

• Details of Information: ( please enclose separate sheet, if required, indicating specific details of information required and the preferred medium i.e. inspection, photocopy, softcopy, etc. This includes specific details like duration of information is required etc.)

• Applicant is from below poverty line: Yes/ No

• Send information by post/ register post/ I'll collect the information by hand.

DECLARATION I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction contained in Section 8 & 9 of the RTI Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains to your office.


Place:_________
Date :___________

Signature of the applicant.

Some guidelines :

While filing an RTI application, the framing of the questions is very important. A slight misunderstanding or vague questions gives the Public Information Officer a chance to reject your application. Follow these guidelines:

• Use a white sheet of paper to write an application. There is no need to using Note-sheet, or the Court stamp paper. You can use your letter pad for asking for information.
• The matter can be hand written, or typed. There is no compulsion of typing the content.
• Make sure the application is legible and easy to read.
• There is no restriction on number of pages for asking information.
• There are also no restriction on number of questions that can be asked in one application. However, it is generally advisable to ask restrict one application with limited set of questions and generally related ones.

• Be very specific & ask to the point questions. Don't ask vague questions.
• Ask as many short questions as you like ,but don't ask for voluminous information.
• Ask information always by writing your name and signature, and not by your post, as only citizen have the right to information.
• Do not ask a question containing 'WHY'! For example, questions like why you failed to pass the bill, is liable to be rejected for not covering under RTI Act.
• You can ask for reasons behind a "administrative" or a "quasi-judicial" decision under Section 4(1)(d), especially if you are a "affected person"
• If the information sought is voluminous, it is better to ask it in the form of CD to save on cost.
• Remember that, you do not need to write the reason for asking the information.
• Mention the payment details like BC/DD/IPO number, issuing bank/post office, date, cash receipt details , etc., towards the end of your application

For more details about RTI please do visit :

http://rti.gov.in

Also read the content and success stories at :

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/content/

Benefits under RTI Act 2005

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 EMPOWERS EVERY CITIZEN TO :

1) Ask questions to the government or seek information
2) Take copies of government documents and inspect them
3) Take samples of materials of government work and inspect them
4) The Act provides for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.

Anti Corruption Campaign-Stolen

Once riddled with corruption, Hong Kong became the 13th cleanest state in the world. Professor Kwok's Interview of ICAC, Hongkong.

MUCH of his life has been spent in fighting corruption. In fact, even after retiring from the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)—the Hong Kong Corruption Eradication Commission—Professor Tony Kwok Man-wai remains very much involved in the battle against corruption. He is now a consultant in 21 countries, regularly delivering lectures on corruption, including in Indonesia.

Professor Kwok joined the ICAC in 1975, one year after it was founded by the then British government in Hong Kong, with a mandate to battle and prevent corruption, and carry out an anticorruption education campaign. Kwok retired when he was deputy commissioner and operations chief in 2002. That year, he was appointed Director of Corruption Studies Program at Hong Kong University, the first such academic program in the world.


Other countries, including Indonesia, regard the ICAC as a model commission in how to eradicate corruption. Because of the ICAC, Hong Kong succeeded in changing its culture of corruption in all the layers of its society. Once riddled with corruption, Hong Kong became the 13th cleanest state in the world, way ahead of Indonesia, which never seems to go under its 100 or so ranking. "If you want to change the culture, never tolerate bribery, no matter how small," said Kwok.

During a public lecture on August 11 in Jakarta, Kwok said the battle against corruption need not take decades. The key, he said, was in the right strategy and in the people's political will, and that there was no single solution to eradicating corruption except to have all economic and social sectors participate. The solution to corruption does not depend on just one institution.

Before the lecture, Kwok spoke at the Integrated Anti-Corruption Workshop in Semarang. Some of the participants were mid-level police officers and under. At the end of the session, one of them came to him and said: "Professor Kwok, I agree with everything you said, but you should be talking with my boss." Kwok said that ultimately, eradicating corruption depended on the leader. That is why, it is important to have political will, regulations, a proper budget, certainty and independence, so that the anticorruption commission is free from any political interest.

Right after the lecture Kwok flew back to Hong Kong. On the way to the airport, Kwok spoke to Tempo reporters Yandi M. Rofiyandi and Yophiandi Kurniawan. Excerpts of the interview:

You seem quite convinced that eradicating corruption will not take decades.
Hong Kong, which used to be very corrupt, only took more than three years to change the people’s culture of corruption. This is the main message. People always consider the effort of changing the culture of corruption as taking a long time, in fact, generations. Apparently, this is wrong. In three years’ time, we were able to stop the syndication of corruption. Perhaps we still have individual corruption, but for sure there was a change of culture during those three years. Here, however, what is needed is political will.

What was the most evident change in Hong Kong?
Corruption is no longer open. In the past, we could see clearly corruption being committed: by taxi drivers, people asking money at schools or at hospitals, and so forth. After three years, people no longer demanded bribes. That was the clearest evidence, the most significant change in the culture of corruption. People no longer tolerated corruption in their lives and they were willing to report any forms of corruption to the police.

How do you establish an anticorruption culture in the education system?
All countries, including Indonesia, should stress cultivating an anticorruption attitude early on, such as in schools. In Hong Kong, that is what we teach in kindergarten.

In Indonesia, people generally think it would take an entire generation to change the culture of corruption because it has permeated all layers of society.
People think it takes a long time to fight really bad corruption. I disagree. The Hong Kong experience shows what can happen when the right strategy and the political will in fighting corruption are applied.

How bad was corruption in Hong Kong before the ICAC was established?
Let’s take the example of service in one hospital, based on an account given by my own mother. In the past, she had to bring her own drinking glass because the hospital charged her one dollar for it. She even had to pay for her towels. Everyone thought at the time that giving and taking money was normal. After the ICAC began operating, a banner with the words, “Giving and receiving money is a violation of the law because it is a bribe. For complaints, call the hotline number,” was placed over every billing counter. Such signs can change people’s attitude.

Was anyone at the hospital ever punished for bribery?
We arrested one hospital employee who took money, even though it was a small amount. Yet, the media criticized us: Why is the ICAC punishing people over one or two dollars? They should be after the big fish, the big corruptors. We had applied the zero tolerance policy. Big fish and small fish, if it was bribery, it was still illegal. If we want to change the culture, never tolerate bribery, no matter how small. After that one arrest, there was never any case of people asking for money in the hospital.

How did the people react when the ICAC finally went after the big fish?
Of course the people appreciated it very much. The anticorruption institution must go after the big fish so that they can demonstrate seriousness, although they cannot ignore the small cases either. That’s how the culture is changed.

Did the public ever criticize your institution?
Every year we would carry out a public opinion survey, and it would show that 98 percent of the people supported the ICAC. The survey also indicated that 90 percent of people in Hong Kong would not tolerate corruption. To the question, “Would you be willing to report a corruption case?” about 80 percent answered “Yes.”

Do you think the change in culture in Hong Kong happened because of the strong influence of British culture?
It had nothing to do with British culture but with human culture which seeks a clean culture. Corruption is global. There must be a campaign to make corruption a shameful activity. This can be done through campaign advertisements. Hong Kong had many, many anticorruption advertisements. For instance, on television, there would be a scene depicting a happy family having breakfast on their apartment balcony. An ICAC officer arrives and arrests the man in front of his wife and children. He goes to jail. The scene ends with the words: corruption destroys families.

Do you believe the death penalty is needed to eradicate corruption, as in the case of China?
I don’t think so. China applies the death penalty, yet corruption is still rife there. The maximum sentence given to corruptors in Hong Kong is 10 years and a minimum of 12 months, yet we have eliminated corruption. When senior officials are arrested, their reputation and their sense of integrity are lost. They bring shame to their families. And these are enough punishments in themselves.

Should there be some kind of incentive to compensate workers, particularly low-salaried government employees, to prevent bribes?
For low-salary government employees who find it difficult to buy milk for their babies, of course there must be an incentive not to commit corruption. That is why the government must guarantee an adequate minimum wage for its employees.

Bribery often involves more than one person. Can it be eliminated to the very roots?
We should punish both the givers of bribes, as well as the receivers. We cannot just investigate one person, because it is bound to involve many people. We used to investigate many people in one case, so that we can destroy the syndicate at the same time. Crime will go on if we arrest just one person. Everyone who is involved must be investigated at the same time. This is an important strategy.

People here doubt that corruption cases linked to politics will be dealt with.
In Hong Kong, the investigation does not stop [when politics is involved]. We pursue it until we reach the top. Political parties have no impact on us. According to the law, we cannot stop. If we stop, the public will suspect there is something wrong going on. No one is immune from the ICAC. Anyone can be caught by the ICAC dragnet.

The challenge of corruption eradication in Indonesia is the police and the prosecutor, which often refuse to cooperate with the KPK.
You must start from the very top. The KPK chairman, the police chief and the attorney general must meet and try to resolve their problems jointly. They must meet officially, to identify the next steps. So, everything begins with cooperation among the leaders. This is where the president should step in: make the chiefs of related institutions to work together.

So, the president should be involved?
If necessary, yes. Generally, he is not needed because the leaders of the institutions should be aware of their respective tasks, so there should be no need for infighting.

Should the KPK have its own investigators?
The problem is how to apportion assignments. The police cannot investigate corruption cases. If both the police and the KPK investigate simultaneously, there would be a conflict because the law is unclear about this. The police should focus on criminal cases, like murder, kidnapping, theft and other crimes. Corruption must be managed only by the KPK. In every country, the anticorruption commission is the only institution authorized to investigate corruption cases. The police should not be allowed to be involved in corruption cases. The KPK must hold the sole mandate in anticorruption efforts. If two institutions are given the same authority, conflict is bound to happen.

But the KPK is a temporary institution.
This is why the KPK needs a legal umbrella. In many countries, their anticorruption institutions are embedded in their constitutions. In Hon Kong, the anticorruption institution is independent, regulated by laws. In Mongolia, the anticorruption budget cannot be rejected by parliament. So, parliament cannot reduce their functions nor their authority by cutting its budget. The KPK must be embedded in the constitution. And they must be given the guarantee to be the sole investigator of corruption cases, to ensure there is no conflict with the police. Even the Corruption Court must be embedded in the constitution.

The recruitment of KPK officials in Indonesia must be approved by parliament. Can this reduce its independence?
The process of recruitment is acquiring the right people for the right job. The objective is to get the best candidates to be members of an independent anticorruption commission, such as the KPK. This must not be mixed with political interests.

So the selection process in parliament is not needed?
There is no need for that. The public can and should monitor the selection process. If the president appoints Professor Tony Kwok, and the people support this, but parliament disapproves, there is bound to be critical reaction from the media and from public opinion.

Some people in Indonesia, including the president, once complained that the KPK’s authority was excessive.
This institution must have power. Otherwise, it cannot function. Of course, there must be consideration towards possible abuse of power. So, a mechanism to prevent such an abuse is necessary. In Hong Kong, we have an oversight unit that consists of people outside the institutions. They are community leaders whose task is to monitor the activities of the ICAC.

In fighting corruption, did the ICAC employees face physical threats or pressure?
Many physical threats, but we are professional agents. Investigating corruption is not the business of one person, but a team. If you killed me, it would be pointless, because someone else would be picking up the investigation. What is more important in fighting corruption is a witness protection policy, because the corruptors can easily threaten weak witnesses. We even had one case in which the witness was killed. So, a good witness protection program is definitely needed. The anticorruption institution must also convince everyone concerned that all its reports must be kept secret.

How to convince the public of the need for secrecy while supporting the whistle blower?
We must maintain secrecy. No one must know who the whistleblower is. If someone at the ICAC leaks such information, the person goes to jail. We have strict laws with regard to maintaining the secrecy of the whistleblower.

What if the whistleblower is part of the problem?
Although he may be involved in the crime, his identity can only be exposed through a court order with strong evidence. If the identity cannot be kept secret, the witness should enter a witness protection program.

There’s a film called I Corrupt All Cops, which tells the story of corruption inside the Hong Kong police force and the ICAC. Is this movie based on facts?
Everything in the film is true. The police force was very corrupt at one time. One joke went that one policeman couldn’t find a bed to sleep in because all the rooms in his home were full of money, covering all the beds.

Tony Kwok Man-wai

Education:
- Masters in Law, City University, Hong Kong (2002)
- Masters in Business Administration, City University (1994)
- Diploma in Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic (1986)

Career
- Director, Corruption Studies Program, Hong Kong University (2002-to date)
- Anticorruption Consultant in 21 countries
- Deputy Commissioner and Operations Chief, ICAC, Hong Kong (1996-2002)
- Director of Investigations (1993-1996)
- Assistant Operations Director (1988-1993)
- Principal Investigator (1983-1988)
- Chief Investigator (1977-1983)
- Investigator (1975-1977)

By Yandi M. Rofiyandi and Yophiandi Kurniawan
Tempo
No. 52/XI/August 24-30, 2011

Awake. Awake. Awake. Its Time to Wake Up.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=147681775322750

I support Times of India version of Lokpal Bill, with all due credit to Anna Hazare and his team.

The Anna Hazare-led civil society movement cannot be faulted for having come up with its version of the Lokpal Bill, because otherwise it would have been accused of campaigning for something essentially negative - the withdrawal of the flawed government version without putting forward an alternative. Frustration with everyday corruption - as well as the spectacular kind that explodes in the public sphere ever so often ( Commonwealth Games, 2G, Adarsh, illegal mining in Bellary district etc) - explains the widespread popular support received by the anti-corruption movement.

The depth of this support, coming from every corner of the country, should tell the government something. While the value of the movement lies in having highlighted the critically important issue of corruption - which has not been dealt with seriously by successive governments - the Jan Lokpal Bill put forward by Team Anna too is flawed in some of its specifics.

If the government Bill is minimalist, setting up a toothless ombudsman with limited powers, the Jan Lokpal is too overarching in its design and could topple under its own weight. It is somewhat contradictory in its approach, in that it envisions a superior layer of bureaucracy to fix bureaucratic corruption. If the government version of the Lokpal Bill can be likened to a cop with a lathi confronting an AK-47 wielding terrorist, the Jan Lokpal could be the equivalent of the trigger-happy supercop mowing down innocent citizens in his rage to establish order.

A third version of the Lokpal Bill, formulated by Aruna Roy and the National Campaign for Peoples' Right to Information (NCPRI), is superior to both the government version and the Jan Lokpal Bill. We are in sympathy with its broad philosophy, which is to have a series of interlocking bodies which will act as a check on each other rather than a centralised, overarching Lokpal which supervises everything. The way to check corruption is through an architecture of mutually supportive legislation, rather than through a single Bill which is required to deliver a magic bullet. This vision is best embodied in the NCPRI design.

The biggest flaw in the government version is that it excludes many categories of public servants from its ambit - anyone below grade A in the central government, state-level civil servants, the judiciary, the PM while he is in office. Moreover the dice is loaded in favour of the accused, which would make it extremely difficult to bring powerful people to justice and therefore defeat the purpose of the Bill.

For example, while there is no provision to protect whistleblowers, the Bill provides for all incriminating evidence to be made available to the accused even before the registration of an FIR. Moreover, the tough punishment provided for the subjectively determined 'frivolous' or 'vexatious' complaint (two to five years imprisonment) would deter most victims of corruption from lodging a complaint.

The Jan Lokpal Bill corrects for flaws in the government version by including everybody under the ambit of the Lokpal. Besides corruption cases, the Lokpal is asked to look into grievance redressal as well. This leaves it with the unenviable task of policing some four million employees of the central government alone, among many other categories.

Like our present court system, the Jan Lokpal could simply get buried under a backlog of cases. Moreover, too much power would be concentrated in the Jan Lokpal. Complaints against it may be lodged in the courts. But since the judiciary itself will be under the Jan Lokpal, that would have a chilling effect on any judgments against it.

For anti-corruption laws to work, the remit of anti-corruption bodies must be specific and focussed. To have a manageable task on its hands, the Lokpal should focus on corruption cases involving MPs, ministers and senior officers in the central government. If corrupt officers at grade A level are punished, the message is bound to percolate downwards. Besides, there can be other agencies to check corruption at other levels (more about this soon).

For the same reasons the Lokpal should confine itself to cases where public servants are involved, and not stray into cases of NGO or corporate fraud. The government Lokpal envisages harsh penalties for NGOs, the Jan Lokpal and NCPRI versions do the same for corporates. But the job of public servants is to regulate the working of civil society institutions. If public servants were honest and only some corporates and NGOs were corrupt, we wouldn't have so much of a problem as the government can throw the book at the latter using a whole gamut of legal instruments: the Companies Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, IPC provisions which deal with bribery and corruption, income tax laws, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act and so on.

The real problem arises when the regulators themselves, ie public servants, are corrupt. Anti-corruption laws will work if we keep the architecture simple, without diversionary red herrings - the government polices civil society, Lokpal polices the government.

Who polices the Lokpal? It could be the Supreme Court, which would entail keeping the higher judiciary outside the purview of the Lokpal. The NCPRI suggests strengthening the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill as a check on judicial corruption. But a superior solution is to have a National Judicial Commission (NJC), which would look at judicial appointments as well.

If the quality of judges in the Supreme Court and high courts could be regulated at entry, that would be a more holistic way of dealing with corruption. To widen the scope of discussion on judicial practices, the NJC should incorporate a balanced mix of non-judicial members as well (the relevant authority in the current Judicial Bill can induct only judges and members of the legal profession). It may require a constitutional amendment to set up the NJC, but the government could commit to bring in such an amendment within a year.

As for dealing with corruption at other tiers of public service, the NCPRI makes sound suggestions. A strengthened Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) can look at corruption among civil servants below grade A level. State Lokayuktas should be appointed to rein in corruption at the state level.

While a serving prime minister should be under the aegis of the Lokpal, strong safeguards are needed to ensure he is not unduly harassed in conducting the work of government. A full bench of the Supreme Court should be convinced there is a prima facie case and clear the investigation, vicarious liability (due to misconduct of other ministers) shouldn't be considered, national security matters should be kept outside the purview of the Lokpal.

There is need for a strong Bill to protect whistleblowers. Another one should set up a grie-vance redressal commission, to look into redress of grievances not amounting to corruption.

Finally, it's important to remember that corruption cannot be controlled through punitive steps alone. Side by side, we need to reform the system to reduce incentives for corruption. For that we need to look carefully at policies and processes through which scarce resources such as land, spectrum and minerals are allocated. We also need to look at how elections are funded.

High stamp duties, for example, incentivise the undervaluing of property and therefore the setting up of a black economy. Heavily distorted land markets make the rise of a land mafia inevitable. Rs 40 lakh as the legally designated upper limit for electoral spending by a Lok Sabha candidate is ridiculously low and impractical, inviting evasion by successful candidates.

Perhaps, instead of a mechanical cap on spending we need to put in place a full disclosure requirement, whereby every candidate is obliged to place on record all campaign contributions received beyond a prescribed minimum level. For insights into how reforming the system (as opposed to punitive measures alone) could reduce incentives for corruption,

India Against Corruption pays Tribute to the Murdered, Right To Information Activist, Shehla Massod.

Watch Arvind Kejriwal undresses the Corruption of Goverment of India Naked.

Sadhguru speaks against Corruption on Ramlila Maidan

Look, who all didn’t like the Anna fast: Imam Bukhari and Shiv Sena, Rahul, Lalu and Arundhati

While I am not a blindfolded hero-worshipper of Anna, and in the past few days there has been much written about the flaws, omissions and oversights of people with him, I thought that the most interesting part of the past fortnight is the assortment of people who stood up to be counted against the manner in which Anna went about his campaign.

It has been a highly unusual coalition of forces, to say the least. A coalition which was not just against the model of the Lokpal bill or its technicalities, but against the very model of a sustained civil society lobby forcing parliament to acknowledge the need to do something, to look at change without the need for a 50-MP pressure group within Parliament lobbying for it, without a political party pressing for it and thereafter converting a subsequent victory into electoral advantage.

Look at the spectrum that tore into Anna’s methods, objectives and doggedness.

Imam Bukhari, that progressive upholder of democratic institutions, was clear that communalism was a greater threat than corruption, and therefore by not raising that issue, by talking only of corruption, and by raising such patently communal slogans such as Bharat Mata Ki Jai and Vande Mataram, the Anna campaign had hurt the sentiments of the community. And Anna got us to see what I would never have imagined – Imam Bukhari sermonizing on the need to emulate Mahatma Gandhi’s “inclusive approach”. Yes, Imam sahib, Gandhi “included grievances of every Indian constituency”, to quote you, but tell me, if you find Vande Mataram insufferable and communal, you could not have approved of Gandhi’s bhajan sandhyas, surely? Just imagine, Raj Ghat has “Hey Ram” inscribed – don’t Gandhi’s last words suffice to make him communal in your perspective, if a Bharat Mata slogan is enough reason for you to start dividing this along religious lines? Give us a break.

The Honourable Imam’s point was echoed soon after in better drafted English by none other than Rahul Gandhi who warned that accepting such civil society demands was dangerous, since today the proposed law is against corruption but tomorrow it may “attack the plurality of our society and democracy”. It was not heartening to see Rahul and Imam take identical positions, but at least we got to have a clearer idea of where everyone stands. Rahul also declared on the floor of the House that Anna was attempting to issue individual ‘dictates’ which would weaken the democratic process – which by definition is ‘lengthy and lumbering’. Ergo, any attempt to make it the reverse – quick and responsive – was, of course, a very subversion of democracy itself. For the first time we had it on record that the political system is not apologetic about what we keep cribbing about – it believes that if we have democracy, the lengthy and lumbering is part of the package. I have written at length on his speech in my previous post, so am not taking it up again in detail.

A wide spectrum of leaders – many of whom freely abuse each other on other occasions – stood united to ‘defend the backward classes’ against the agitation. But why is an anti-corruption agitation, a demand for a stronger Lok Pal, a Forwards vs Backwards issue? Ram Vilas Paswan, one of our more affluent leaders, explained that “People from SC, ST and OBC communities are afraid if similar movements will be launched to take away reservation and other benefits provided to them by the Constitution.” But, Paswan ji, the three groups together make up over half the country’s population. Would they not be able to argue their points for themselves exactly the way the Anna campaigners have done? Why do you need to nix the anti-corruption initiative on a caste and creed ground? BSP leader Dara Singh Chauhan made the amazing statement that “Dalits had been left out of the Lokpal Bill”. What does that mean? Backwards were left out? Sikhs were left out? The people from the North-East were left out? Displaced Kashmiri Pandits were left out? The Lokpal Bill – or anything at all that instills the fear of God in the salivating hordes of moneymakers growing in our systems – is not something from which anyone can be “left out.” Tomorrow we’ll lobby for appointing a Lok Pal along a rotational quota system, lobbied for by respective parties? Can we never see beyond this mindset for any national debate?

PL Punia, currently chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and Congress MP from Barabanki, who for years was Mayawati’s trusted bureaucrat – memorably during the whole Taj Heritage Corridor episode – said Anna’s campaign posed a “threat to Baba Saheb’s Constitution”. Excuse me? You cannot reverse-appropriate the sanctity of the Constitution along caste lines. I am sorry, but the Congress was not Gujarati even if Gandhi and Patel did much to build it up, the INA was not Bengali even if Bose ran it, and the Constitution does not need to be defended along such lines even if Babasaheb was its architect. What mindset is this? And what did Hazare ask for that causes affront to the NCSC? Or this is an extension of the party line by other means?

The other upholder of ethical behaviour and Constitutional sanctity, Lalu Yadav, was clear during the debate in the Lok Sabha that ‘This is not the first time that Parliament is debating the issue of corruption. There is nothing historical about today's debate.’ Come on, Lalu. Debates over corruption can hardly be expected to strike a chord with you. Of course it is not the first time corruption is being debated. That is exactly why there is this much angst – you know you can sit and debate and ensure nothing is actually done which makes anyone uncomfortable. Except that, this time, the pressure was far too much to acknowledge that there has to be more than debate. And you have a problem that this is an NGO game and “Yeh log chanda pani se apna jal pan karna chhahate hain”? I don’t think it’s a secret that far too many NGOs are more interested in funds than work. But you, dear Lalu, of all people, have a problem with people arranging “chanda pani”? Really?

But the anti-Anna angst has not been a self anointed backward / minorities leaders’ alignment; far from it. The Shiv Sena doesn’t like Anna’s agenda either. The Sena’s Sanjay Raut told the media that Anna’s Ralegaon Siddhi is the ‘Gangotri of corruption’ and declared that fasts are not going to end corruption. True enough. The Sena has never believed in fasts to end anything. Far simpler to throw stones at buses, theatres, and at anyone you don’t agree with. Raut was also distraught that “Some NGOs are misusing Anna’s name to make money.” Now, what would the Sena know about making money, eh?

At the other end of the spectrum is Arundhati, of course, who had her share of the limelight through her impassioned article, wherein she explained that the Maoists and the Lokpal Bill both sought to overthrow the Indian State; that Anna supported Raj Thackery and Modi; that this was a war backed by Corporates. The one thing I comprehended was in her concluding para: ‘This awful crisis has been forged out of the utter failure of India's representative democracy, in which the legislatures are made up of criminals and millionaire politicians who have ceased to represent its people’. Now, come to think of it, isn’t that something like what Om Puri and Kiran Bedi were saying, in less stylised prose?

So, if you look back, you realize that Imam Bukhari thought Anna was communal, while the Shiv Sena thought he was corrupt. Rahul thought he was issuing individual dictates, Lalu thought the whole debate he raised was pointless, while Arundhati thought it was a grand conspiracy.

While I do realize that the Lokpal agitation has had its limitations and deficiencies, this rewind of all those who have slammed it leaves one with the sense that if they all think this needs to be stopped – well, somewhere, fundamentally, this man is doing something right.

The biggest validation of the Anna campaign is, ironically enough, the gallery of those whom it made uncomfortable.

Follow Anshul Chaturvedi on Twitter