Image source: indiatogether.org

To be clear, the Lokpal Bill (Ombudsman Bill) proposed by the lawmakers in India as a mechanism to fight corruption is a sham and is designed to encourage, rather than discourage corruption. In the lawmaker’s version of the Lokpal bill, the office of the ombudsperson is appointed by the government (at its own pleasure) and the office will serve only in an advisory capacity with no powers to actually pursue corruption charges in court. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the office will be limited to politicians and not the civil servant and other officers who are responsible for running the government machinery; of course, the office will not have the authority to investigate the Prime Minister. Also, while the office of the ombudsperson do not have the authority to actually press charges against the politicians they deem corrupt, they do have the authority to penalize the citizens who make the corruption accusation (in the event that the office finds their target of investigation innocent). [source: India Against Corruption]

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this bill is a toothless tiger which will only foster the moral bankruptcy and the rampant corruption that is the Indian government.

Now, we come to the Jan Lokpal bill that is being proposed by the India Against Corruption lobby. The Jan Lokpal bill proposes that the office of the ombudsperson be an independent institution much like the supreme court or the election commission. It is to be appointed by a selection committee consisting of judges, ‘meritorious’ citizens who have won awards like the Nobel prize, Magsasay award, the Election Commission, Auditor General, and others. The bill proposes that central vigilance commission (which investigates corruption by the civil servants and government offices and departments) and the division of the Central Bureau of Investigation be folded into the office of the ombudsperson, so that there is a single office that investigates the charges of corruption in all branches and levels of the government. The bill also proposes that the office be an investigatory body with authority for law enforcement which allows the office to pursue criminal charges against the individuals who the office finds guilty. The bill also sets a time limit of one year to complete the investigation and one year for filing charges against the accused if sufficient evidence is available. The bill also have provisions for whistle blower protection, and a provision to recover the money or value lost by the government from the individual who was found guilty of corruption (which resulted in the aforementioned loss). [source: India Against Corruption]

On the face of it, the Jan Lokpal bill looks like a great idea, but reflecting on it, I am disturbed by the assumptions made in the bill. My objections are a little different from the kind I have seen online. For example, here are objections by [Rohan], [Offstumped], and [Business Standard]. I have both practical and philosophical objections. I present one of each.

On a practical level, the bill says little to address the issue of “who watches the watchman”. How do you ensure that the integrity of the ombudsperson’s office is not compromised, and if it is compromised, then how do you recognize and then fix it? Given the level of corruption in India, this is a real concern. Until this issue is addressed sufficiently, I am not too comfortable throwing my support behind it.

On a philosophical level, I have deeper concerns. The office proposed by the Jan Lokpal bill is a meritocratic institution which monitors a the government, a democratic institution. To put it differently, the bill makes a democratic institution accountable not to the people who voted, but to a meritocratic institution which can potentially exert it’s influence on the outcomes of the governance. The risk here is that such a meritocratic institution could develop the attitude of “people don’t know what they want, but we know what’s good for the people”, and use it’s authority to enforce an agenda that might not be the will of the people.

While I grant you that the current “democracy” in the India is really plutocracy in disguise, simply making it answerable to a meritocracy cannot be a solution to the problem at hand.

IMHO, the solution to this problem of corruption can only come from democracy itself. Not because democracy is somehow sacred, but because the institution that is corrupt is supposed to be democratic in the first place. Initiatives like “I Paid A Bribe” is a great example of such efforts. Another example of involving the citizenry was proposed by India’s chief economic advisor Kaushik Babu in which he proposed decriminalizing bribe giving and keep bribe-taking a crime. This will provide an incentive for the bribe giver to not conceal the fact that the bribe was given and even co-operate to ensure that the bribe taker is caught.
I wish I had something more constructive to offer, but unfortunately I don’t.

UPDATE: Realitycheck provides credible objections to the Jan Lokpal bill..

The sane will wonder the justification in such a pay rise given that a crippling double digit inflation is strangling the nation’s economy. But the smart figure out a justification for it. Here’s how it goes…. well, on second thoughts, maybe someone who is an expert in these matters should explain them to you. And of course I am referring to Sir Humphry and Sir Arnold. :)

Here is a clip from one of my all time favourite TV series Yes Prime Minister, that describes the entire process in hilarious detail: [link (part 2), link (part 3)]

Part 2:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JObTDctaZOc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB5R40Ds_yg

The best reaction that US could give was that it was ‘disappointed’ (that is was ‘deeply disturbed’ and ‘urges’ Pakistan to return to democracy). Disappointed!? Is that it? Whatever happened to all the rhetoric about being pro-democracy and restoring democracy in the world one botched fiasco (translation: Iraq) at a time? But wait, isn’t Pakistan (translation: Musharraf) an ally in the American war of terror? So I guess anything that Musharraf does is pro-democracy, given that Bush and Mushrraf are bosom buddies and all. I wouldn’t be surprised if Washington tows Musharraf’s line on this one, viz. that he did it for democracy!

Halloween is the Christianized bastardization of the wonderful Celtic harvest festival called Samhain. One of the more relatively recent bastardization is called ‘Trick-or-treating’ (it started circa 1930s). Trick-or-treating typically involves children going from house to house asking for candy with the question ‘Trick or treat?’ (Leaving all the pedophiles salivating in the process). The ‘treat’ part being a ritualized begging for candy, and the ‘trick’ part referring to the threat of playing a trick on the owner of house, or on the property itself.

So yeah, we have trick-or-treating during Halloween. There is a name for this whole process of asking for candy or threatening with not-so-pleasant consequences – back where I come from, its called Extortion.

Coming back to my original claim, have you noticed how US likes to talk to other nations? — “Give us your oil, or we’ll invade you country under a false pretext”, “Surrender you nuclear technology to us, only we should have nuclear weapons, not you. Or else, we’ll impose sanctions on you”, “Remove your subsidies agriculture (but we’ll keep ours) so that we can dump our surplus in your market, or else we will ban import of your goods into the US”, and so on.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds a lot like trick-or-treat to me! Like I said, Bush, Cheny,and co. must have loved trick-or-treating during Halloween, coz’ they are doing it with the rest of the world today; only this time thousands end up dying for their (Bush and Cheny’s) amusement.

The statement on the website says:

Zeitgeist was created as a non-profit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced. Soon, an Interactive Transcript will be online with detailed footnotes and links so exact sources and further research can be relayed.

…

Here’s the movie for your viewing. Note that the movie is 2 hours long, so make sure you have enough time to watch it. But I guarantee that you will have strong opinions about it one way or the other.
Don’t forget to check out the Clarifications (which dented my confidence in the authenticity of the ‘facts’ in the movie), and the Sources sections.

Without further ado, here’s the movie :)

Lately, the issue of gun laws has cleaved American politics along partisan lines, with the conservative republicans being liberal about guns and liberal democrats being conservative about it.

I am not a US citizen, so technically my opinion on this issue doesn’t matter. But, I do live in the US, that too in Texas, and I am not exactly enthralled by the prospect of anyone being at full liberty to own a gun that they may point at me for any reason at all. So yes, from a self-preservation point of view, my opinion matters. If you haven’t guessed already, I am all for gun control.

All advocates for liberal gun policies spout rhetoric about the second amendment, and the right to bear arms. In reality, the second amendment is about the right to bear arms to form a militia (This amendment was made to allow Americans to defend themselves if their government turned against them). In other words, everyone who owns a gun in America is now a one-man militia.

Another argument for liberal gun policies is best elucidated by Levitt in his book Freakonomics. To paraphrase, gun disrupts the natural pecking order. In the natural pecking order the physically strong can overpower the physically weak. When you throw a gun into the equation, now the weaker person with a gun can win the outcome of a fight with a stronger person. However, if both have guns, then the natural order is restored. Gun advocates argue that the bad guy will procure a gun from the black market if its not legally available. However, the good guys are law abiding, and hence, won’t. Therefore, with strict gun laws we will have bad guys with guns and good guys without. In order to restore the natural order it is necessary that the good guys also carry guns.

There is, admittedly, merit to the above argument. It is true that America has a thriving gun black market. So even if gun laws were tightened significantly, the criminals would be able to procure guns, and would emboldened by the fact that law abiding citizens are now less likely to carry a gun on them.

Given that the argument is logical, lets go ahead and apply it globally. Lets talk about global gun control, a.k.a. Nuclear (non-)Proliferation. The argument that applied to liberalizing gun laws in US applies to the world as well. You have law abiding countries (countries that honor their international agreements, and uphold international law), and you have rogue countries. You have countries that already have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is an impoverished nation that has nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan is a fast developing country in central Asia, and has mineral, cultural, and economic wealth. In the natural pecking order (i.e., sans nuclear weapons) Kazakhstan is above Pakistan. However, due to the nukes, now Pakistan enjoys certain favors that Kazakhstan doesn’t. So to restore the natural order shouldn’t Kazakhstan be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?

If law abiding citizens of U.S. have to carry guns to protect themselves from armed criminals and killers, then shouldn’t law abiding countries be allowed to carry nuclear weapons to deter rouge countries (with nukes) from attacking them? If terrorist nations can acquire nukes from the former Soviet stockpile for cheap, then shouldn’t other nations living under the shadow of terrorism arm themselves with nukes for their own safety and security? In other words, by lobbying for liberal gun laws, aren’t gun advocates giving credence to the frenzied nuclear proliferation in the world?

One would think so. But the same government that is gung-ho about liberalizing gun laws is also extremely concern about nuclear proliferation and will go to great lengths to keep the pecking order as it is, with the elite ‘have’s and the remainder ‘have-not’s.

Isn’t there a word to describe this? Oh yes of course! Its called ‘Hypocrisy’.

What is free or freedom really? Dictionary says that Freedom is “the power to act, speak, or think without externally imposed restraints”. Looking at the system and the social conditioning in place, are people really free or do people merely perceive life to be free here? Is it a fact or a myth solidified by the indoctrination within the society.

Life is easy here, no question about it. But is it free? So long as you follow the rules, things are ok. So long as you dont question them, its ok. You are allowed to question on your rights, but not the rules. The obedience to the law is almost complete and without question, regardless of how insane the laws are. People have accepted this as a part of their life. When you have been deprived of the maturity to question the laws, then how can you be free? For instance, at a stop sign (not traffic signal), you are expected to bring the vehicle to a complete stop, look and then proceed. This is a fine rule, made for the safety of the pedestrians and motorists alike. However, a lot times when in the car, I see situations where it is an overkill to bring the speed down to a complete zero and starting again. But this discretion to slow or completely stop has not been granted, despite the fact that the person who is abiding by it has complete knowledge of why the rule is in place. IMHO, so long as the intention of the formulation of the rule is being met, the associated action must not be treated as violation, because the rule was made to avoid an unsafe condition, and his actions, in no way are resulting is such a condition. When this choice of action has been taken away from us, are we really free? Arent our actions being dictated by people sitting in high offices and promulgating what they think is right? You can interpret the law, but cant argue against it. The intent is lost somewhere in the middle of all this. Obey the law, by definition, it is the right thing to do. So where is freedom?

A corollary of that is the huge distances between any two spatially disjoint points. The nearest walmart is over 6 miles from where I stay. Even the local eatouts are not spared. They are over 25 meters from the road. Thanks to how big and far things are here, the american governement assumes that everyone who has his/her foot on american soil owns a car. As a consequence if you own a busines, then you better have enough parking space to park as many cars, as the customers you can service at a given time. So if a McDonald has a seating space of (say) 30 people, then he better be able to provide parking for as many. So what you see is that, none of the businesses are close to the road, all of them are way out with parking space between them and the road. So when you go to walmart, you see that walmart is over 100 meters fromt he highway, and betweent he highway and walmart are over a 100o cars parked!

Naturally, if you dont have a car, you might as well consider yourself handicapped. And if you are a new, ignorant, international (read as “poor”) student here, then you have to hope that someone takes pity on you and takes you to walmart regularly (which, by that way, is what the local churches and community organizations are doing, God Bless them), or you starve.

Considering the dire cirsumstances I am in, I am starting a Help-Me-Buy-A-Car fund. Everyone is welcome to contribute to it. I am make do distinction in the caste, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, race, species whatever. So please feel free and generous to contribute to this fund. I myself have contributed over $100 to it. You can follow suit, no pressure though. Would be nice if you contributed, that’s all. I accept cheques, and wire transfers. Feel free to contact me.

Amen ;)

Sad to see that the india has chosen to be ruled by an alien :(

Speaks of the extent of ingorance and illiteracy prevalent in india, and also answers the question “Why isnt there a political will to educate the masses?”

Face it, no one is really interested in ruling the nation. Everyone is in it for the corruption and to make their dough. National interest seems to be non existant. The sensex crashing over 800 points in a day is a testiment to the apathy brandished by the polical parties.

I am not sure if there is much that can be done about it by us, but atleast we can show our protest….

Here is a mail that I received…. Dont think it will help much, but atleast a voice will be heard

Hi,

This is a political request ! I feel humiliated to have Sonia as our PM ! I am feeling so agitated about this affair.. It is really a national shame that we have spineless, gutless, docile Congress leaders (actually they are just having servant mentality :-( ) and its coalition leaders.

Please sign this petition and please forward it all your friends , if you believe that our nation deserved better than Sonia ! Give a call to your friends , share your agony, let us create a public opinion. I have decided to be more active from now on, I request you to do the same !

Please sign this petition to show your support : http://www.petitiononline.com/stop1305/petition.html

Our aim is to have 10,000 signatures by End of Today.

Your Nationally,

Indian

My 2 paise’ worth contribution :)

Also I was thinking… may be google’s search can be skewed once again, this time to attack sonia gandhi…. just like before in case of Kerry and Bush. Who’s with me?