Tub-thumping:

tub-thump (tbthmp)

intr.v. tub-thumped, tub-thump·ing, tub-thumps Slang

To argue for or promote something vigorously

Apparently the thumping of desks in parliament at the end of a session signifies unanimity amongst members of the house on, well, the soup du jour, if you will.

Why they decided to go tup-thumping instead of a more objective voice vote (something that would morally bind every member to their vote in future) that was being proposed earlier in the day makes for interesting post-analysis.

I’ll come to that later. Let’s take a couple of steps back to understand what has really happened.

At the start of the agitation, Team Anna’s demands were – to pass the Jan Lokpal Bill in Parliament by 30^th August, in its entirety. No changes, no discussions, no Standing Committees. (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/annalila-begins/834561).

At the end of act one, what they have is a thumped resolution (not bill, not legislation, not law) from both houses of the parliament to include three, erstwhile, contentious issues in the Lokpal bill draft and forward it to the Standing Committee. That’s it. (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/why-anna-says-half-victory-govt-gives-in-but-not-much/838185/0).

One hopes that this bill will undergo further debate, fine-tuning at the Standing Committee and will include views from different sections of civil society. Post which it goes to Parliament. Now if I was a believer in the Lokpal bill, I would postpone my victory celebrations until the day it gets cleared in parliament. (I wonder if this would have been a more apt occasion to fast, or are we going to see one more soon?)

Either way, personally I can make peace with what has happened. In the end the Bill will go through the rigor that any bill goes through. As far as I am concerned, it was the bulldozing of one particular version of the bill that really bothered me.

So that’s that. But I want to look at the thumping bit once again.

Essentially, this sort of endorsement, while it represents the house collectively, does not specifically hold each individual to their word. A voice vote on the other hand would have captured each MP’s support for the bill or lack thereof objectively.

Was it just the most convenient and expedient method to end the session and go home? Or was it more than that? Was it a calculated move that would allow them to remain ambivalent on the bill when it finally comes to them a few weeks down the line?

This tug of war is far from over.

Democracy Bulldozed

I am writing as an Indian, agitated with the current agitation for the Jan Lokpal Bill, ironically enough. I’ve been introspecting to understand what is it that’s really bothering me.

It’s not that I consider the bill to be just another blunt tool in reducing corruption, far from being the magic wand Mr. Hazare promises it to be, that’s not reason enough to justify my internal discord. Perhaps it is the immense concentration of power, specifically as proposed in the civil society version, which I feel will only foment further corruption. Isn’t it, after all, power that first tempts exploitation for personal gain? Is it reasonable to expect that the hundreds of Lokpal & Lokayukta members will continue in chaste execution of their duties and will not start abusing these powers over a period of time?

Anyway, the point is, this is mere conjecturing and we as civilians cannot possibly stake an honest, educated and technically qualified claim to understanding the ramifications of the nuances in both avatars of the bill. And yet we continue to throng behind Anna Hazare, not able to decipher the fine line between supporting a broad movement against corruption and a movement to bulldoze a specific version of a bill, the merits of which we clearly do not understand.

Bulldozed. Yes, that is the problem.

Bulldoze without comprehension, without dialogue, without debate, without flexibility. This is utter disregard for democratic parliamentary procedures. There is disagreement within the civil society team as well, while simultaneously the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) have drafted their own version of the bill (read this). Just because some members are not fasting does not make their opinions any less valid. I support India Against Corruption, but I certainly do not support Mr. Hazare’s fast to impose his will over all other groups and the parliament, not the least because I don’t think he is qualified but because the issue is larger than any of us can individually comprehend.

As Mr. Nandan Nilekani rightly said a recent interview, we have to respect the parliamentary standing committee and its workings. Dialogue and debate is the only recourse, if we are going to pass a Lokpal bill, let it go through a rigorous process involving representatives of different members of civil and the political society. And we need to make peace with the consensus and build it from there. (read his interview with Shekhar Gupta here).

Dialogue. Yes, that is what we need.

I’ve been living out of the country for a brief period, and it’s sufficient to say that the region I live in has only ingrained a strengthened sense of respect for the democratic freedom we enjoy in our country. I realize democratic procedures are fraught with their own pros and cons, but at least they provide the right framework to discuss, form and amend the laws of a country such that they protect the interests of every section of its population. In a country where almost 500 million people turn out to vote, a show of a few thousand or even a few lakh people is hardly representative of what the entire country wants. Especially more so when in our anger and exasperation, we are failing to see that our support to the fight against corruption is automatically translating into pressure on the parliament to accept a bill that hasn’t gone through the rigor that a law of such magnitude and consequence deserves.

If we no longer have the faith or just the patience to adopt constitutional methods, then what are we really saying? Tomorrow if an activist takes up the cause of reservations and starts campaigning for higher quotas, we can rest assured these protests will attract the same level of support if not higher, albeit from a different cross-section of society. I wonder what the middle-classes so vehemently supporting the current movement would have to say then. The attempt here is of course not to voice any opinion on reservations as such, but it can be predicted that reactions from similar members of society would be very different.

Protests need to be used to highlight concerns to government. Not to impose the will of one section of society over the other.That’s what we have elections for, to understand the needs of the majority and minorities alike and find the best way forward. Given that this requires time and patience, but it is the only way of preserving democracy.

Let’s not bulldoze our democracy, which has evolved slowly but surely over these 64 years. We are all against corruption, but let’s just stop for a second and evaluate what we need to support, what we need to question and what we need to debate.