Is there is a sense of disillusion creeping it among the people who had supported the anti-graft movement. Is there a feeling that perhaps it was a fad? Just like it is now a fad to question the movement- both its style and its content.

Well, the middle class is known to be cynical and skeptical. At the same time, it should be mature enough to understand that getting rid of something like corruption that has been so deeply entrenched not just in the system but also in our psyche is a long term affair.

It is alleged that while the middle class has been quick to express its disgust at the politicians, the most identifiable culprit, can it absolve itself of all responsibilities. What about the fact that it itself is so neck deep in corruption – fudging bills, evading tax, greasing palms to get a service out of turn. Surely, these are serious issues and we need to reflect on our realities. At the same time, perhaps we all seek redemption. In the movement, we find some solace and deliverance. Surely, the first fight against corruption should start at home and perhaps with the person in the mirror, but the movement did give the push and it must be acknowledged.

Finally, criticism is good– it implies engagement, it implies ownership and it implies public debate which is so much at the core of any democratic process. Let us be open to criticism and help these to make the instrument (whether it is Jan Lokpal Bill or whether it goes by any other name) robust and inclusive.

How should civil society (OK-whatever it means - the entire range of institutions and associations outside the state and the political parties, specifically the voluntary and not for profit sector) articulate it views?

What are the best and the most accepted ways to get heard? What are the best ways to get a response from a state that is an active conduit in the game of corruption? What are the best ways to hold those in power accountable?

We are swift to admonish Anna Hazare style of agitation and scorn at Baba Ramdev’s hysterics. However, in our rejection of these, we need to propose and produce alternative forms to articulate our voice.

The UPA government had created a space for civil society by setting up the National Advisory Committee (NAC). The creation of the NAC brought in grassroots activists and allowed mainstreaming of their ideas into policy making. Can we have something similar for the anti-corruption campaign as well? However, it is difficult and complex as is reflected by the experience of the joint drafting committee for the Lokpal Bill. It is time that the anti-corruption movement started broadening its support base and make the critical mass felt.

What do you think are the ways and means of doing it?

The most unfortunate and undesirable development of the way the anti-graft movement is the fact that now the politicians are alleging that the civil society trying to override the ‘will of the nation’- represented by the elected government and the decisions it takes on behalf of the people who have brought it to power. These are the same people who are known for their complicity in offering huge favours to industrial giants subverting the interest of the people and that of the state- the same people who allow lands to be acquired from the poor famers and given at throw away prices to corporate in the name of public interest of industrialization; the same people who bend backwards to maximize revenue generation for the big corporate groups even at the cost of heavy and totally unwarranted loss to the exchequer. However, we get the government we deserve and now what it does is without question – ‘the will of the nation’.

Surely there are problems with the way the movement, if it can be called one, is heading. The leadership is being questioned, and so it the ‘followership’. There is no consensus on the content of the Lokpal Bill. There are questions about the elite and subaltern aspects of the movement. However, are these not a natural outcome of a process like this that is rather unstructured? The allegation that unelected activists are undermining the right of the Parliament right to make laws are nothing but both shields and volleys that the politicians are employing to protect their own interest in continuing with the status quo of mutually beneficial relationship with the corporate and the bureaucracy.

Ostensibly, the basic premise of anti-graft movement with which a lot of politicians are uncomfortable is that all politicians are corrupt. However, is there an answer to the question why the politicians across party lines are so opposed to something that puts accountability under scanner? Do they really want us to believe that it is because they are so worried about the sanctity of political institutions and of democracy? Or is it just because they see it as a curtailment of power?

There are quite a few lessons for the proponents of the movement as well. The groups should go back and get the people support. It now seems.ke a ‘team Anna and his handful of individuals’ versus ‘rest of the politicians’ battle. The movement needs to be a people’s movement and the people need to be more explicit about our support to anti-corruption activities. There is also a need to review the coercive tactics. It is important that the movement does not lose its steam- the conflicts are bound to be there and the content will always be contested. However, it is the time to be perseverant.

Do you think that the anti-graft movement is now all scattered?

Despite the good cause and a solid support base, the anti-graft movement seems now to be taking a different shape and charting a new course. The recent turn of events on the front does not auger well for the movement at all. The movement is getting increasingly personality oriented. There is no point comparing the relative importance of the personalities, analyze their background and decide who is more acceptable. The point is also not to analyze the state reaction that has swayed from one extreme to another. The point is about the vacuum in leadership for a cause that masses identify and the kind of political bankruptcy that the entire episode reflects.

Undisputedly, a large number of people identify with the cause- the middle class is the most apparent. However, the support base is not a monolith- there are people from all hues and colours and perhaps prominence of saffron has got a few people uncomfortable.

However, what remains completely unaddressed is the CORE issue, -there is a huge lack of political will, simply because it is going to hurt the politicians and the industrialist – the most powerful network in the country today, the most. The relationship of political favour in return of money has been deeply entrenched in the society leading to a strong relationship between the country’s political and financial elite. Perhaps the procedural inefficiencies of the “license-permit raj” created the conducive environment for corruption to develop and breed. However, the proportions it has taken in recent times as revealed by the various scams is unimaginable and frightening. The result is that while all political parties are paying lip service to an anti-corruption stand, only a miniscule section of people actually identify with what they are posturing.

In addition, of course there is corruption in daily life, from the one who delivers LPG to the schools who ask for ‘donations’ for admission, the kind of things that get us all exasperated. However, it is doubtful if the way the whole issue is being handled will help the case. It seems that the vacuum of leadership is beginning to impact the movement. However, despite need of leadership and perhaps a face for the movement, it must be ensured that the movement does not get into a personality cult. Rather, it should get members of the civil society to work out how with the government on the best ways to act on corruption. Without this we will only have dramas and theatrics by both the government and those wanting to represent the anti-graft movement leading to further erosion of democratic functioning.

Do you think that the anti-graft movement is going through a rough patch?

Now that the euphoria over the symbolic victory over the Jan Laokpal bill has settled down, it is time to soothe the nerves and take stock of the situation in a positive yet realistic manner without getting frenzied over issues and personalities.

Of course the issue is extremely important and naturally it found resonance. It is also extremely significant that it brought together thousands of faceless Indians fatigued not just by scams but by the way corruption had eaten out public life and out to support a campaign against corruption.

Naturally when there were voices of protest against the bill, tolerance levels were low. However, it is in the interest of any anti corruption move to understand what the critics have to say and to address issues that are pertinent to the cause. So what is it that those seemingly against the Jan Lokpal Bill have to say. Below are some of the points that are at the crux of the debate. No stand is taken here, only the questions asked with the objective of allowing people to think and reflect.

To being with, contrary to its name, is it not an instrument that would actually centralize power? The citizen only has the right to file a complaint and be heard, everything else rests on the Jan Lokpal who will vest extraordinary power.

While the disdain about the political classes is understandable, does the bill undermine the validity of the democratic institutions and in the process strike at the very tenets of democracy?

While many people came out in support of the bill, has the bill itself has been scrutinized through public debate? Has reason been overwhelmed by frenzy? While the expectations have raised, has a proper understanding of what it will take to make it work created? Are the people informed about the content and the implications of the bill?

The bill will put the existing vigilance machinery under the control and supervision of the 11-member Jan Lokpal, or Lokayukta, with an independent cadre of vigilance officers bringing the CVC and that part of the CBI that deals with corruption under the Lokpal. A huge additional bureaucracy will have to be created and additionally, investigations need more staff. Even then, how can a centralized body like Lokpal or Lok Ayukta investigate the huge numbers of complaints received?

At present, the Lokpal’s integrity and accountability is assured through a) a transparent process of functioning, b) judicial review and c) mandating that the main responsibility of the 11-member body is to ensure the integrity of the whole vigilance establishment under them. The basic concern remains: however robust the appointment process, can we justify concentrated power based on “good faith” and “goodness”? (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?271400).

These are some questions raised by eminent people and civil society activists themselves. These are issues that need discussions and it is in the interest of any anti-corruption movement, to be open to such discussions.

Do you think that the points made against the Lokpal Bill need further debate?

Thanks to the movement led by Anna Hazare the demand for a strict Lokpal Bill is gaining momentum. It is indeed a needed step as the Lok Ayuktas at the state level need all the support to be strengthened in order to be in a position to act against corrupt officials and public representatives. Lokayukta, conceptualized as a watchmen and an anti-corruption ombudsman organization in the Indian states was meant to help citizens of India bring corruption to the fore mainly amongst the politicians and officers in the government service. However, given the way it has been drafted, the power it wrests gets often rhetoric given that the act itself gives little power to the Lok Ayukts, the catalysts of change.

So far the Indian experience of Lok Ayukta has been rather personality driven rather than issue driven (for issues are usually the same, they concern the misuse of position by those in power). As such, the performance of the mechanism or the system depends solely on the personal attributes of the Loyayukta. The corruption issues in Karnataka has become a personal battleground between Justice Hegde and the Chief Minister- which is not only undesirable but also extremely unfair, given the kind of pressures it creates in discharging one’s constitutional duties. In less high profile cases, where the personalities can be subverted with ease, the Lokayuktas have little meaning and significance as they remain silent and powerless watchdogs. Under the present Act, Lok Ayukta has to seek permission of competent authority to take action on complaints against chief minister and other public servants. Permission has to be sought from the governor for this. It does not have the powers to take suo moto cognizance of complaints as often people are reluctant to make formal complaints against powerful persons fearing retaliation.

This facet puts a question mark on the effectiveness of the Lokayukta –as a recent art in the Indian Express points out- “A lone soldier armed with limited resources and powers have over the years not turned out to be a viable concept to fight corruption”.

As a result of the recent movement, the government has issued a gazette notification on the formation of a joint committee (of government and civil society representatives) to draft an effective Lokpal Bill. One can only hope that this recognizes and works on making the entire process system driven, rather than dependent on personalities, freeing them concentrate their work rather than having to worry too much about the consequences of dealing with corrupt but powerful personalities.

What can make the Lok Ayuktas less of a personality driven institution?

Anna Hazare’s fast was to get a commitment from the government to the Jan Lokpal Bill as proposed Lokpal Bill was considered to be toothless and actually ‘eyewash’. He and his supporters are rightly convinced that a strong bulwark against corruption requires an active role by the civil society. As such, the demand was to appoint a joint committee comprising fifty percent officials and the remaining citizens and intellectuals to draft the Bill.

The contentious point here as is raised by a few (including people like noted academician and the president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, is the fact that “the demand is premised on an idea that non-elected institutions that do not involve politicians are somehow the only ones that can be trusted (The Indian Express, 7 April, 2011). So, in a way, this is extrapolated by such writers from the contempt of politicians to a contempt of representative democracy. The fear is that “net result of a “Lokpal” will be to weaken the authority of even other well-functioning institutions”.

Is this a valid concern? Theoretically yes. However, the entire movement (if one can call it so) needs to be viewed in the context of the state of representative democracy that has lost its accountability and is fast losing its credibility. Of course this is not desirable. Of course it is not a good idea to have ‘draconian institutions that bypass or subvert other democratically elected institutions’. Surely, there must be better ways of putting mechanisms of accountability in place. However, at this point in time, the rot of corruption is so entrenched that there appear to be no alternative in functionalist or equilibrium approach to the problem. It is the so called ‘Historical Materialism’ moment – you might not agree with but you cannot ignore its appeal.

There is another journalistic piece that talks about the symbolism associated with the movement- the singing of Vande Mataram, about the assorted religious figures associated with it, talks about sindur, shringar and a loosely hung Hindutva kind of ambience. Saba Naqvi proclaimed that, “This was more in the nature of a mass jagran that provided a pravachan or a religious discourse and belted out desh bhakti songs. It was a made in India spectacle as kitschy as our popular culture”. http://www.im4change.org/rural-news-update/the-jagran-at-jantar-mantar-by-saba-naqvi-7110.html. Perhaps, it was confused, this assessment is just putting style over substance. Obviously, spontaneity has little value for the journalist. How does it matter if it gave the people a platform to voice their concern, a cause they identified with but had no means to convey or rally around? It also had to be ‘politically correct’? What can be more kitschy than to dwell with mere manifestations with emphasis on and make judgments about people and their efforts based on that.

Do you think are the points against the anti-graft movement are well made?

The recently organized seminar ‘Whither Media,’ organised as part of the three-day Third International Congress on Kerala Studies, provided a platform for some serious introspection and contemplation about the state of India media. Indeed, the year 2010 was a serious blow to the faith restored in the media. While the coverage of the terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 was questioned on ethical grounds as a battle for TRPs compromised the safety and security of the hostages during the crisis, the allegation in 2010 regarding ‘paid news’ and the ‘Radiia tapes’ has showcased the media as a willful conniver with the corporate, the politicians and the state. There is now evidence of involvement of media personnel in to promote private interest in politics. Whatever the arguments put forward by the journalist- these are indefensible acts of betrayal of public faith.

This is also a let-down from the not so good old days when Indian journalism was so forthright in exposing the carnage in Gujarat, fearlessly accusing the state for its part in the communal violence. Of course, one could argue media was less effective than in the 1980s when it could lead to the fall of a government on the Bofors issue. In 2002, it could not lead to any such dismissal, but it did play the watchdog role effectively.

Unfortunately, we have come a long way from that. Media is now caught in a quagmire where there seems to be a rat-race to ‘expose’ corruption. It is indeed laudable and people involved should be brought to justice. However, there is so much more that needs public information and debate. Have you ever wondered that while seventy percent of the country continues to live in the villages why they are so less represented in the media, except for some sensational news- a murder here or a boat capsize there? Is it because the English newspaper reading gentry is not interested?

Speaking in seminar, Mr N Ram, Editor of the English daily, The Hindu, quoted one major criticism about the media in India, voiced by prominent economist Dr Prabhat Patnaik, that the media had fallen prey to the hegemony of the global financial capital and that its moral universe had shrunk. The media should function on the template of truth-telling, independence, justice and humanness, he said. For the Indian media, the key question was one of covering mass deprivation. It should not be a case, as Professor Patnaik had pointed out, of the media seeming to be powerful when covering the financial capital and powerless when speaking for the poor.

There is no denying that media that had an elevated position as an institution working for public interest, is now tainted. It seems that the downward spiral continues to engulf the media. The challenge is to emerge from the ashes as a phoenix. To engage in what it is good at, be once again the collective conscience of the society. Given the way it has entangled itself in the clutches of money and power, it is certainly not a straightforward process. However, there is hope that these challenging times would lead to introspection, reflection and finally clarity within media about their role in the society. Whether they want to remain political mouthpieces, how will they deal with their corporate ambitions, what will restore peoples’ faith in them – it all depends on the outcomes of these internal reflections.

Do you think that the Indian media can win back the trust it has lost?

What is the most disturbing part of the whole gamut of corruption? Perhaps the fact that the state has finally decided to surrender its power and responsibility to govern to the private parties in return of monetary benefits.

Clearly it is a win-win situation for both - those serving the state apparatus in high positions and the corporate groups for whom the easiest modus operandi is to buy these ‘important people; first and rest of the things just follow. This explains the growing nexus between politics and business and the huge increases in the assets of private individuals representing business and representing, unfortunately, people like us.

The trend seems to have been encouraged under liberalization as the state increasingly dilutes its role as an active participant controlling, influencing and regulating the nature and scale of private activity to take on that of being a facilitator of private investment, often at the expense of the common people. The allegations that in creating the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), the state subverted the interest of the local people to create special privileges for the corporate giants stem from this core argument- the government no longer works in the interest of the people it represents, rather it works in connivance with private parties and it ‘rewarded’ in the process to create exclusive benefits.

All the point to falsify the advocates of liberalization who argue that reduced state intervention would increase transparency and reduce corruption. Liberalization does not mean that the state withdraws from intervention but merely that there is a change in the form of state intervention, which also enables the state to deliver illegitimate gains to individuals and private players http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/30/stories/2010113055451000.htm.

And this is not just about India. In his study of urban politics and planning in the city of Aalborg, Denmark, noted sociologist Flyvbjerg notes his experience of the crumbling ideas the neoclassical model of “economic man,” competition, and free markets. As he investigated into what happened behind closed doors in Aalborg, he found that “the members of the local business community were power mongers who were busy negotiating illicit deals with politicians and administrators on how to block competition and the free market and create special privileges for themselves”. In a similar manner, the model of representative democracy, which by law is supposed to apply, was strangely absent and what prevailed was highly undemocratic, semi-institutionalized way of making decisions, where leaders of the business community and of the city government had formed a secret council, which effectively replaced the democratically elected city council as the place where important decisions on urban politics and planningwere made. (Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

So is it about the whole model of capitalism? As much as we try to steer clear of such mother statements, we really seem to be running out of options.

Is corruption an inherent part of a system that encourages accumulation of private capital?

Talking of corruption it is noteworthy that at the receiving end of the (usually ineffective) media blast are the politicians and the government officials – as if the virus of corruption afflicts only them. Of course, the onus is higher as they control and misuse state power and people’s money, but given that it is so much about payments made by the private sector to realize illegitimate gains, it is important to bring them to justice as well.

According to a recent estimate by the Global Financial Integrity program of the Centre for International Policy, the money that had illicitly flown out of India to accounts abroad over its post-Independence history stretching from 1948 through 2008 was around $213 billion, the present value of which equals 36 per cent of India’s GDP in 2008. According to the report titled The Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008, “68 percent of India’s aggregate illicit capital loss occurred after India’s economic reforms in 1991, indicating that deregulation and trade liberalization actually contributed to/accelerated the transfer of illicit money abroad.” Thus, those making huge gains need to evade the tax and/or other laws of the country, encouraging the illicit transfer of wealth out of the country, a process again facilitated by liberalization (http://www.hindu.com/2010). As noted social scientist CP Chandrasekhar says in the above mentioned column (link provided), “In a world where profit making and the accumulation of wealth is celebrated and rewarded, where it is the “bottom line” that finally matters, unless circumstances lead to the detection of fraud or a violation of the law, an increase in the wealth of a private sector player is normally seen as a virtue and a reflection of “entrepreneurship” and “innovation.”

The private sector is an active participant in the process of corruption and it is time that they are held accountable for that. In a civilized society, business houses also need to have a certain code of conduct. However, given the immense clout that business houses enjoy with the politicians and the media, it remains rather insulated. In fact, they are lauded for their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, projecting an optimistic and positive image not just of the corporate houses but in general- hiding the murky scenario.

The voice of protest, social movements led by the eternal jholawalas and trouble-makers are neither heard nor reported the way they should be. These voices are also weak in that they are so personality driven and often entangled in ideological clashes within that they fail to effectively deliver an alternative vision. In fact, the entire developmental paradigm seems to have no place for any alternative.

Are we in a totally bleak scenario? How can the business –politics network be revamped in a way that the interest of the people takes precedence over private interests?