Response to the PM's Response

Here is the complete response of the pm:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/article2365194.ece?homepage=true
At the first read, the statement did sound very convincing. However, on another slow read, I was of the opinion against the statement.

7. However, on August 15, 2011, the organisers refused to accept six of the conditions, including the condition that the protest fast would be limited to three days. Hence, Delhi Police informed the applicants that, since they had declined to accept some of the conditions and refused to give the undertaking to abide by all the conditions, permission would not be granted to hold the protest fast at Jai Prakash Narayan Park. Prohibitory orders under section 144 CrPC were also imposed on August 15, 2011 in and around Jai Prakash Narayan Park and some other areas.
11. Our Government acknowledges the right of citizens to hold peaceful protests. In fact, Delhi Police have allowed several such protests, but in each case appropriate conditions have always been imposed and the organisers were always required to give an undertaking to abide by all the conditions. Shri Anna Hazare and his supporters would have been allowed to hold their protest fast if they had accepted the conditions under which the permission was granted and had undertaken to abide by the conditions. Since they declined to do so, Delhi Police was obliged to refuse permission to hold the protest fast.


Why was this condition imposed in the first place? If the civil society is demanding protest permissions of indefinite fast, what is the basis on which Government refused their right to do so? For me, the Government's stance is still unclear. The peaceful protests which Govt allows are by no means of the scale as this one, and one finds it difficult to comprehend, why certain conditions include strict restrictions on the grounds of time and venues? Are we going to have a law stating that indefinite protests can't be held in the country?

12. The Government wishes to stress that the issue before the nation is not whether a Lok Pal Bill is necessary or desirable. All of us in this House are agreed that a Lok Pal Bill must be passed as early as possible. The question is, who drafts the law and who makes the law? I submit that the time-honoured practice is that the Executive drafts a Bill and places it before Parliament and that Parliament debates and adopts the Bill with amendments if necessary. In the process of adoption of the Bill, there will be opportunities for Shri Anna Hazare and others to present their views to the Standing Committee to which this Bill has been referred by the Hon'ble Speaker. The Standing Committee as well as Parliament can modify the Bill if they so desire. However, I am not aware of any constitutional philosophy or principle that allows any one to question the sole prerogative of Parliament to make a law. In making a law on Lok Pal, the Government has faithfully adhered to the well-settled principles. As far as I am able to gather, Shri Anna Hazare questions these principles and claims a right to impose his Jan Lok Pal Bill upon Parliament.


Here, Mr Singh just nailed the purpose of the agitation. The Govt by law, is the one who makes law. The same was true when the tyrants ruled. The constitution allowed them to make laws and no one else. It was unlawful for a common citizen to try and refuse to accept a law. The well settled principles which Mr Singh mentions here have been very well demonstrated by the various ministers of his own Govt and hence, the civil society is trying to interfere.

13. I acknowledge that Shri Anna Hazare may be inspired by high ideals in his campaign to set up a strong and effective Lok Pal. However, the path that he has chosen to impose his draft of a Bill upon Parliament is totally misconceived and fraught with grave consequences for our Parliamentary democracy.


Can Mr. Singh, suggest another way to have an action against the law in our democracy? The Supreme Court can't comment, because law making comes under Parliament's judiciary. It is not too far back, that the Govt challenged Supreme Court for it's authority. The only way he can possibly suggest is to compete in the election, which I have tried to analyse in my previous blog entries, and I found a direct correlation between money and winning probability.

14. Our Government does not seek any confrontation with any section of the society. But when some sections of society deliberately challenge the authority of the Government and the prerogative of Parliament, it is the bounden duty of the Government to maintain peace and tranquillity. Delhi Police, as the authority charged with the responsibility, took the minimum steps necessary to maintain peace and tranquillity in the capital city. Inevitably, though unfortunately, it led to the arrest and subsequent release of Shri Anna Hazare and some of his supporters. I sincerely hope that the incidents of yesterday will not be repeated today or in the future.


Can Mr Singh please highlight, how was the peace in the capital city being disturbed by this? If only the venue and space was to be provided, there haven't been any incidents of violence from any section of civil society till date. There however have been serious incidents of violence from the part of Delhi Police (ref. Baba Ramdev)

15. I should also make it clear that the issue between the Government and Shri Anna Hazare is not one of different attitudes to fighting corruption. In my independence day address, I spoke at length about the need to deal effectively with corruption. I would like to assure the House that we are determined to provide a Government that is transparent, accountable and responsive at all times and determined to fight corruption. But as I said on 15 August at the Red Fort, there is no magic wand by which, in one stroke, we will get rid of menace the of corruption. We have to work simultaneously on several fronts. In my 15 August address, I have outlined some of the measures we intend to put in place to strengthen our fight against corruption. I invite all sections of this House to join hands with us to deal with the cancer of corruption.


Here is what Mr Singh said on How to fight corruption:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/prime-ministers-speech-on-indias-65th-independence-day-126632

None of the statements, he has made is a definitive statement, except a strong Lokpal Bill. The only point which he points out is a strong judiciary. I am afraid, that although Mr Singh spoke at length in his Parliamentary speech, there was nothing in his speech, which laid any hope of reduction in corruption.

16. With respect to the events of yesterday, I will only say that a functional democracy must allow multiple voices to be heard. But differences of opinion must be resolved thorough dialogue and consensus. Those who believe that their voice and their voice alone represents the will of 1.2 billion people should reflect deeply on that position. They must allow the elected representatives of the people in Parliament to do the job that they were elected for.


For this section, all I can say is "Democracy without eduction is Randomness".. The present Parliamentary structure, I am afraid, doesn't really mean representative of people, since most of the uneducated people are ill informed about candidates, and votes for money system rules the country. (ref. my prev entry on the blog)

17. India is an emerging economy. We are now emerging as one of the important players on the world stage. There are many forces that would not like to see India realize its true place in the Comity of Nations. We must not play into their hands. We must not create an environment in which our economic progress is hijacked by internal dissension. We must keep our mind focused on the need to push ahead with economic progress for the upliftment of the 'aam aadmi'.


And once again, the rest of the world is bad, and we need to support the 'aam aadmi' who travels in a local at 45, eats at a village for the first time after 45.