Given the primacy of combating corruption to breathe life into the concept of democracy, the anti-corruption movement in
India is indeed the country's second movement for freedom. Given the magnitude of the problem, the complex and
interlinked inroads corruption has made into all aspects of life in the country, it is not mere lack of interest,
political differences and sheer snobbishness of the country's political elite that has united them in opposing more
sober proposals, sans 'camps', suggested by the civil society as opposed to the nonsensical draft law proposed by the
government. The fact that not a single political party of the world's largest multi-party democracy has supported the
civil society initiative against corruption illuminates the lack of morale of at least one of the country's democratic
institutions.
The unwelcome reality for the political parties in the country that do not have what they believe in as their 'manifest
destiny' to decide everything in India and for Indians, understandably will be bitter, but a refining pill for the
country's politicians to swallow. In that, India is also witnessing the defining moment and thus the process of maturing
of its democratic framework. Dislike by most parliamentarians about the fact that the parliament they are seated in does
not have a writ beyond the collective wisdom of the people who sent their representatives to the legislative house is
understandable. Nor can they act according to the will of the people, since should there be a strict anti-corruption
framework in the country, a substantial number of the country's parliamentarians would find their abode being shifted
from their palatial houses within their fiefdoms into the narrow rooms within prisons. Disgust upon the public appeal
for a 'biting' law against corruption by the country's political elite is thus understandable, but they have no other
choice.
The civil society's model anti-corruption laws, or the one proposed by the government are indeed not the best
legislations out there. Both versions of the future law have scope for improvement, in particular, the one drafted by
the government, the weakest and the most recent visible specimen of the disrespectful attempt against the constitutional
writ that the government is mandated to protect. However good the legislation is, without a proper implementingframework
the law cannot deliver its legislative writ.
Kallipolis will not follow once the law is in place, no matter how well meaning it is. If not at any other time in the
past, it is now a moment in the country's history that the members of the India's civil society must put their
differences behind and speak in one voice, against corruption and not to make use the public space they enjoy to pass
comments about how bad is one form of campaign from the other or how good is a particular proposal as against the
others. Comments by some of the leading civil society activists reported through the media paints a disappointing
picture of the lack of thematic consensus and confirms the worrying public perception that the human rights movement in
India is divided between different camps, some of them formed on the basis of who have received what decoration and who
aims for what more in the form of recognitions. In that some of the civil society leaders in the country are not immune
to intellectual corruption. The last thing the country can afford now is a 'blue ribbon jury' within the civil society.
There are relatively successful models of anti-corruption frameworks in the world, within Asia itself. The system that
is in place, for instance in Hong Kong, is of relatively high efficiency. That a unique territory like Hong Kong is not
a true democracy underscores the fact that a parliamentary form of democracy is not required to contain corruption. That
there is parliamentary primacy over the acts of the government is more the better though. The Hong Kong model of
corruption prevention takes within its sweep non-government entities, including human rights groups and business
establishments. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption provides a comprehensive theoretical and practical
framework against corruption, a model that must be studied by anyone who is serious of fighting corruption. Unlike all
other international conventions the UN has produced, the Convention against Corruption provides an extensive
implementation framework.
Equally important is the government's effort to maximise wider consultancy in the process. Engaging in consultations
with a single individual is not what is warranted under the circumstances. A consultative process is not the
government's prerogative to offer, but a citizen's right to be fulfilled.
For now the government and the non-government groups have had their chances to take their shots at the target. The
question then is what next?
Assuming that eventually there would be a law in India against corruption, probably the best of its kind in the world,
without drastic reforms of the justice institutions it would be like owning a radio without means to electricity. Of the
manifold problems that India face today, arguably, corruption would be one in the 'top-ten' list. Of equal importance is
the non-functioning justice apparatus. However, the country's civil society is yet to wake up to this reality or is
pretending to sleep over this issue.
The potent evil in India is not the façade made up of some of the reckless and globalised business interests, but the
foundational weakness of a state, that still lacks the understanding of and refuses to accept that its justice regime
has stopped growing and has instead started putrefying. Without incorporating debates concerning the urgent requirement
for a complete overhaul of India's justice framework, corruption will continue to flourish in India, no matter what law
is eventually legislated.
*************
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in
Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of
these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
ENDS