Press Briefing Friday, 8th April 2011

Shri Abhishek Singhvi addressed the media today.


Shri Abhishek Singhvi said the Congress party stands for a crusade against corruption. The Congress party is the only party which has scrupulously avoided any heist between preaching and practicing. We have shown that whenever there are credible allegations and credible means much less than any legal proceedings even court orders much less than that. Whenever there are credible allegations, the Congress party and the Congress-led UPA have taken concrete action. Chief Ministers have gone, Cabinet Ministers have been removed, criminal proceedings are on-going, several other proceedings started and full transparency maintained. In contrast, other political parties - national or regional - in stark contrast have practiced hypocrisy, double standard, taken no penal, no coercive action and indeed supported errant individuals without any removal or any other kind of coercive action. We are, therefore, with the nation and with civil society in this crusade against corruption. It is we and not any other party which has declared our intention to pass the Lokpal Bill. It is we who are taking steps for that purpose. But we cannot lose a sense of balance. We cannot forget that we are governed by a constitution and we cannot have jingoistic or populist decision making. We cannot allow form to take the place of substance.

Shri Singhvi said that we have shown utmost deference and respect to Shri Anna Hazare and to all his colleagues. We have tried to engage with him and with other members at every stage at length earnestly and sincerely. We have formed a GOM quite a while ago meticulously looking at every aspect of the issue. Despite no precedent, despite our objection on principle, we have still agreed to a joint drafting committee. We have agreed to have equal numbers - five of theirs and five of governmental nominees on that joint committee. We have agreed to yet another third demand of theirs that we will introduce the Bill in the monsoon session. We have agreed to the demand that this joint drafting committee will be activated before the 13th of May 2011. We have, therefore, agreed to every substantive demand. We have reached out and tried to act on the substance of the matter. In addition to all this, Prime Minister has appealed to Shri Hazare. The Congress President has appealed to Shri Hazare. I am asking you what else remains. I am asking you, have not all points of substance been met? I am asking you that are not some of these members of civil society arguing and been obstinate and intransigent on matters of procedure and not of substance. They claim to have a right that they will nominate the Chairman of an official governmental drafting committee. I am asking you, under our constitution, is it possible for senior Minister - extremely senior Minister who head that GOM to sit on a committee with somebody else's Chairmanship. I am asking you, is it possible that the civil society says that Hazare should be the Chairman. Mr. Hazare says I will not be the Chairman. The Civil society says that they will nominate another Chairman. In our constitutional scheme, when this law goes through the Law Ministry for vetting, it goes to the Cabinet for approval; it is then piloted through parliament. Will these civil society members pilot it in parliament? Therefore, how is it possible to agree to such demand like Chairman of the Committee when we have agreed to joint committee of five members of each? Is it not a procedural objection trying to be obstinate and delay the matter? I also ask you that is it possible for a government to set a precedent by issuing a gazette notification - another demand of theirs. Is it not purely a procedural issue? What is the relevance of this demand when we have specifically we have said that we are having five each ten member committee - five of yours and five of ours. Are they not delaying the main issue of discussing the Lokpal Bill provisions rather than wasting time on procedure? No government worth its salt can abdicate its constitutional responsibilities. It cannot create an impossible precedent. I ask you and not taking names, today, if I gazette a notification or have a Chairman of a group of Ministers of an outside civil society, what stops you tomorrow, an identity group called 'X', a Gurjar group called 'Y', a Jat group called 'Z', a Minority group from demanding the same notification. We must realize that we are part of constitutional governance. We are a proud democracy and we are proud of our democracy. We have a vibrant constitution, not one single demand of substance has not been met. Today, merely because civil society members ask us, we cannot ignore the constitution. We cannot ignore precedent, law, rules, regulations and practice. I am not for the moment going into the very important question - who represents the civil society - do you represent the civil society, does he represent civil society. Do two out of those twenty people at India Gate represent or those two hundred represent civil society. Who decides and how to decide e.g. tomorrow for another issue, a large slice of society says we are civil society but I am prepared to accept these members on the joint drafting committee. Then where is the question. I earnestly appeal, let us work together to find a solution. I think there is absolutely no substantial or substantive or real issue remaining. We have to get down to the nitty-gritty of drafting the Bill. I also appeal to everyone to be concerned about Shri Hazare's health. I appeal to his colleagues not to jeopardize his health. I appeal to civil society not to allow his health to be jeopardized.

To the questions as to who will form the civil society or whether a ordinary citizen can be termed as civil society and whether there is no any provision in our constitution for forming such committees and how the Congress party agrees to such unconstitutional demands and if it is in view of the ensuing assembly election in five States, Shri Singhvi said the Congress party has shown its willingness to find a middle path and we do not have any ego and our agreeing to such demand should not be treated as basis for other unreasonable demands. Under the constitution, the constitutional responsibility, the responsibility to get the bill passed and the accountability still rests with the government and the Ministers and will remain so in future also. On their insistence, we have agreed to a joint drafting committee.

Shri Singhvi further added that the only two issues on which there was an impasse, was that the Chairman should be ours - this is what they said and there should be a gazette notification. It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. We, as a government, also have certain rights and responsibilities which we cannot abdicate. We cannot simply discuss them through the TV channels in this manner. I do not find a single reason why a very detailed focused discussion on the nitty-gritty provisions of Lokpal is inhibited, obstructed or delayed, merely because a senior government Minister, who ultimately may have to take responsibility in parliament and pilot the bill, is the Chairman. That is the prerogative of the government and we are talking of principle and we believe that we are not in the least unreasonable. On the contrary, people may think that we are giving and agreeing for too much. Nobody, howsoever big he is, should appoint and declare himself an ambassador for the country on the basis of a referendum. In spite of all this, we are trying to find a solution through a process.

On another question that the ruling class has failed to address the serious issue of corruption, Shri Singhvi said that it is too general a question. I think we have to live today when we are in the midst of passing a Lokpal Bill. We cannot keep pressing the rewind button and erasing everything and going back. There have been delays. I am asking you, where several members of esteemed civil society were in those six years from 1998 to 2004 nobody initiated a move for Lokpal. We may be imperfect but we are trying to pass the Lokpal Bill and today we have to focus on the best Bill which is a balanced Bill and not what happened in the last 40 years.

Shri Singhvi also said that it is only motivated thinking which suggest that it is as short a thinking span as elections finishing in two to three weeks. It is completely irrelevant and completely unrelated. We stand ahead of every other political party with our head held high on terms of corruption issues because we have tried our best to combat them.

On another question on the identity of the civil society, Shri Singhvi further said that he is not making any value judgment about the identity, content or nature of such forces or their existence or their absence. I am saying it is a matter of principle. It is a very moot and important question and today those who are trying to talk to us may be right but tomorrow, there is no basis for distinguishing because tomorrow any slice or group of people can claim to be true representative of society. There is no other system in our democracy except governance, election, and parliament. Any other system would arrogate to you and ultimately degenerate into authoritarianism. We are not letting that principle stand in the way of the immediate formation of the joint committee because we want to move ahead.

On another question of Sharmila sitting on fast unto death for the last ten years, why no response in relation today's situation, Shri Singhvi said there are issues and there are moments which require urgent intervention. It is a question of the issue involved. We do believe that the Lokpall Bill is of urgent necessity.



(Tom Vadakkan)
Secretary, AICC