Medha Patkar declines Karnataka award citing government’s failures

Social activist Medha Patkar has declined the Basava Award instituted by the Karnataka government in view of its inability to deal with various corruption cases.

The National Alliance of People’s Movement said in a press release:

“It would have been an honour to receive this [Basava] award in the name of revolutionary saint poet, philosopher Shri Basaveshwara of 12th century who promoted social change, reform and communal harmony. However, collective opinion of movements I am associated with suggests that Karnataka government has not been able to deal with the mining scam and other scandals. The Lokayukta controversy is not yet over and there are disagreements with people's movements on certain policies related to farmers, workers, unorganized sector workers, slum dwellers and government's attempt at privatization and corporatization of scarce natural resources - land, water, forests and minerals. I, therefore, would like to state with humility my inability to accept the award which you may be free to give to any other deserving activist.” Medha Patkar said at a public meeting in Belgaum, Karnataka yesterday (February 7).

The Karnataka government’s Department of Kannada and Culture had announced bestowing the Basava Puraskar 2010 to Medha Patkar by a government notification dated December 3, 2011. The award contains a citation and Rs. 10 lakh for contribution towards social change and promotion of the principles which Saint Basaveshwara championed.

Medha Patkar is currently leading Lokshakti Abhiyan which started its fourth phase campaign on February 6 from Mumbai. The Abhiyan is being joined by farmers, activists, academics from different states and will travel through Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra.

The Lokshakti Abhiyan has already been to Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand.

Other members of the Abhiyan in this phase include Suhas Kolhekar, Suniti S R, Roshanlal Agarwal, Nageh Tripathy, Vedvati, Raj Singh, Naseevar Babu, Kamlesh, Seela Manswanee, Madhuri Shivkar, Gee Ammena, Ashu and others.

Graft law in critical phase

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

The long-drawn-out effort for a new machinery to deal with rampant corruption has entered a crucial phase. With the polity deeply divided on the Bill the government placed before the Lower House of Parliament last week, the shape of the machinery that may emerge remains uncertain.

At the introduction stage itself, several members, led by Bihar leader Lalu Prasad Yadav, launched virulent attacks on the measure, kindling memories of the ill-fated Bill to provide reservation for women in Parliament and the state legislatures. Some of them accused the government of acting in haste, under duress.

Responding to criticism of the measure, Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee said, “If you feel it is not necessary, we will not have it. Legislation is the domain of Parliament.” This gave rise to suspicion that the political class wants to defeat the legislative effort the way it thwarted the women’s reservation Bill.

However, the government cannot abandon the Bill since Anna Hazare’s movement has created sentiments in favour of a tough anti-corruption regime. The House is due to vote on the Bill after three days of discussion beginning tomorrow. Hazare will be on fast in Mumbai on all the three days. He has also asked his supporters to prepare for a “jail bharo” (fill the jail) agitation.

Anna Hazare deserves full credit for compelling the government to pilot the bill to create the Lokpal institution, which successive administrations have talked about but not pursued seriously. However, in insisting that Parliament reject the government Bill and adopt the one drafted by him, he is overreaching himself.

When Team Anna approached the Bombay High Court for a directive to the Mumbai authorities to make available a suburban ground for his fast at a concessional rate, the judges questioned the propriety of “parallel canvassing” when Parliament is considering the measure. Leaders of the Communist Party of India and the CPI-Marxist were present at the all-party meeting Hazare called in New Delhi recently, but in the house the CPI spokesman ridiculed him for seeking the mantle of the Father of the Nation.

An organisation styled as “Save Democracy: Save India” has announced plans to hold rallies in Mumbai for three days, coinciding with Hazare’s fast, in protest against his attempt to dictate to Parliament.

The Bill Parliament is considering is an improved version of the one the government prepared. The standing committee which considered the government draft, along with those submitted by others, including Team Anna, made many changes to strengthen it.

As it now stands, the measure provides for a nine-member Lokpal at the Centre and for a Lokayukta in every state. Both the institutions will be constitutional bodies. Half the membership of the Lokpal will be filled by women, Dalits, Adivasis and backward classes, with a quota for the minorities in the last category.

Hazare’s demand that the Prime Minister be brought under the purview of the Lokpal has been conceded. However, a bench comprising at least seven members must hold an in-camera preliminary inquiry into the complaint against him. His work with regard to sensitive matters like international relations, national security, atomic energy and space cannot be looked into.

The Lokpal can entertain complaints against ministers, members of Parliament, officials and non-government organisations which receive more than Rs 1 million as donations in a year. Hazare, however, insists the Bill is still very weak. He is unhappy that it does not place the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Lokpal, although it does provide for the Lokpal and the Chief Vigilance Commissioner supervising CBI investigation of cases referred by them.

Almost all parties have reservations about some provisions or other. For instance, the Bharatiya Janata Party and some regional parties are opposed to inclusion of the Lokayukta in the measure, viewing it as contrary to the federal principle.

Since parties which disapprove of particular provisions may be able to combine forces and defeat them, one cannot be sure about the form in which the Bill emerges from the House. If the Upper House makes any further changes in the measure it will come before the Lower House again. The Bill enacted by Parliament will be subject to judicial scrutiny. Parliament and the Judiciary will not be as susceptible to outside pressure as the Executive is. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, December 26, 2011.