The Lokpal Bill

Activist Anna Hazare and Kiran Bedi, the first woman IPS.

   The word Lokpal means an ombudsman or Watchdog in India. The word has been derived from the Indo-Aryan words "lok" (people) and "pal" (protector/caretaker). The concept of Lokpal has been drawn up ostensibly to root out corruption at high places the prevailing in Indian polity.

Lokpal Bill

    The first Lokpal Bill was passed in the 4th Lok Sabha in 1969 but could not get through in Rajya Sabha, subsequently, Lokpal bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were never passed and its pending. 

The Lokpal Bill provides for filing complaints of corruption against the prime minister, other ministers, and MPs with the ombudsman. TheAdministrative Reforms Commission (ARC) while recommending the constitution of Lokpal was convinced that such an institution was justified not only for removing the sense of injustice from the minds of adversely affected citizens but also necessary to instill public confidence in the efficiency of administrative machinery. Following this, the Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969.

    However, while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, resulting the first death of the bill. The bill was revived in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and most recently in 2008. Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was referred to some committee for improvements - a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry - and before the government could take a final stand on the issue the house was dissolved.

   Several flaws have been sited in the recent draft of the Lokpal Bill. Meanwhile the activists of India Against Corruption (IAC) have prepared a draft for the bill called Jan Lokpal Bill

History

The basic idea of the Lok Pal is borrowed from the office of ombudsman, which has played an effective role in checking corruption and wrong-doing in Scandinavian and other nations.In early 1960s, mounting corruption in public administration set the winds blowing in favour of an Ombudsman in India too. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) set up in 1966 recommended the constitution of a two-tier machinery - of a Lokpal at the Centre, and Lokayukt(a)s in the states.

Duties

Prime Minister or a House of Parliament — to whom a Lokpal sends its report holds that the allegations of corruption made in a complaint against the Prime Minister, or a Minister or MP (present or past) have not been proved, "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law", "no prosecution shall lie on any complaint, report, information or otherwise and no court shall take cognisance of any offence on the basis of the same or substantially the same allegations." Further it says that once a complaint is made to the Lokpal nobody can take up the same complaint or any thing close to it in any court of law through a Public Interest Litigation or otherwise. In such a case there is also a ban on referring it for inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. To think of it, imagine a situation once the Bill comes into effect, when someone (could well be the accused’s `paid complainant’) approaches the Lokpal with a case, then this could bring to a halt all pending investigations against the accused, a former or present Prime Minister, minister or MP. It could well be the case that the charge of a crime might absolve the criminal of all investigations into his crimes!

The Lokpal is empowered to give directions for deferring or suspending any ongoing police investigations in matters covered by the complaints made to it.

There are many more gems of justice that deserve attention. Contradictory to the government’s claim that the Lokpal would provide the common man with exemplary powers to censure his/her elected representative, every complainant, the government’s ‘common man’, has to pay a fees and take full responsibility for leveling charges and in case the complaint is found to be baseless, to discourage the same ‘common man’, serious punitive action extending to two years in jail and Rs.50,000 in fine will be imposed on the complainant.

Charges of corruption in the Indian legal system are not necessarily covered only under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but also under many other Acts, but the Lokpal restricts its ambit to the cases under this Act.

Regarding the constitution of the Lokpal, the Chairman of the Lokpal shall be from among past or present chief justices of Supreme Court. But the other two members of the Lokpal may also be from those qualified to be judges of the Supreme Court. The loose end left here makes countless many from India’s entire judiciary eligible for the post including those who are also senior party politicians with legal background.

Another notable point is that the Lokpal has no powers to punish the ‘guilty’. After finding someone guilty Lokpal can only report its findings to the Prime Minister or a House of Parliament and

Lokpal is highest institution in India to investigate corruption at higher places in Government. Creation of Lokpal institution is under process. Many previous attempt were unsuccessful due to lack of political support.

This institution will cover all government ministers, officers at centre including Prime Minister (Under Debate).

NIBIRU 2012 A.D the End?

The Nibiru collision is a supposed disastrous encounter between the Earth and a large planetary object (either a collision or a near-miss) which certain groups believe will take place in the early 21st century. Believers in this doomsday event usually refer to this object as Planet X or Nibiru. The idea that a planet-sized object could possibly collide with or pass by Earth in the near future is not supported by any scientific evidence and has been rejected as pseudoscience by astronomers and planetary scientists.

The idea was first proposed in 1995 by Nancy Lieder, founder of the website ZetaTalk. Lieder describes herself as a contactee with the ability to receive messages from extra-terrestrials from the Zeta Reticuli star system through an implant in her brain. She states that she was chosen to warn mankind that the object would sweep through the inner Solar System in May 2003 (though that date was later abandoned) causing Earth to undergo a pole shift that would destroy most of humanity. The predicted collision has subsequently spread beyond Lieder's website and has been embraced by numerous internet doomsday groups, most of which link the event to the 2012 phenomenon. Although the name "Nibiru" is derived from the works of ancient astronaut writerZecharia Sitchin and his interpretations of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology, Sitchin himself denied any connection between his work and various claims of a coming apocalypse.

Scientific criticism

Astronomers point out that such an object so close to Earth would be easily visible to the naked eye (Jupiter and Saturn are both visible to the naked eye, and are dimmer than Nibiru would be at their distances), and would be creating noticeable effects in the orbits of the outer planets. Some counter this by claiming that the object has been hiding behind the Sun for several years, though such a claim is geometrically impossible. Images of Nibiru near the Sun taken by amateurs are usually the result of lens flares, false images of the Sun created by reflections within the lens.

Mike Brown notes that if this object's orbit were as described, it would only have lasted in the Solar System for a million years or so before Jupiter expelled it, and that there is no way another object's magnetic field could have such an effect on Earth.Lieder's assertions that the approach of Nibiru would cause the Earth's rotation to stop or its axis to shift violate the laws of physics. In his rebuttal of Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, which made the same claim that the Earth's rotation could be stopped and then restarted, Carl Sagan noted that, "the energy required to brake the Earth is not enough to melt it, although it would result in a noticeable increase in temperature: the oceans would [be] raised to the boiling point of water . . . [Also,] how does the Earth get started up again, rotating at approximately the same rate of spin? The Earth cannot do it by itself, because of the law of the conservation of angular momentum."

In a 2009 interview with the Discovery Channel, Mike Brown noted that, while it is not impossible that the Sun has a distant planetary companion, such an object would have to be lying very far from the observed regions of the Solar System to have no gravitational effect on the other planets. A Mars-sized object could lie undetected at 300 AU (10 times the distance of Neptune); a Jupiter-sized object at 30,000 AU (1000 times the distance of Neptune). To travel 1000 AU (30 times the distance of Neptune) in 2 years, an object would need to be moving at 2400 km/s, or faster than the galactic escape velocity. At that speed, any object would be shot out of the Solar System, and then out of theMilky Way galaxy into intergalactic space.

select the part and click to print:

Pro-democracy protests sweep across Arab World

The Yellow portions-the Arab World.

    Over the past several weeks pro-democracy movements have been spreading from one Arab nation to the next. What started as a young man’s protest suicide in Tunisia earlier in January, toppled down the 30 year old autocratic regime of 82 year old Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who was forced to resign on February 11, alter 18 days of protests, and hand over power to the army. The call for democracy is now sparking anti-government Libya. The hard living conditions and the soaring unemployment rate has provoked the citizens’ anger towards their autocratic governments. On February 25, demonstrations for better government services spiraled out of control in Iraq. The international community is not only concerned about the bloody violence but also about the increasing oil prices. Although community is seriously condemning the violence in Libya, the future of the country and the rest of the Pro-democracy movements in the Arab world is left to seen.

Tunisia: Tunisia’s popular revolt, which ousted veteran strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, has inspired dissidents across the Arab world. Following the overthrow of ex-leader Zine El Abidine Ben ali, Tunisia, on February 7, authorized inter president Foued Mebaza to rule by decree. Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi resigned on February 27, as security forces clashed with protesters in Tunis demanding the removal of some Ministers of his interim government.

Egypt: The military council has set a six-month timetable for democratic elections and vowed to hand power over to a civilian government in line with the demands of the protesters who drove Mubarak from Power. The Opposition party is led by El Baradei, the Noble laureate.

Yemen: President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been in power for 3 years decades. He has promised not to run again when his current term expires in 2013 and pledges not to pass on power to his son.

Algeria: President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s government officially lifted a state of emergency in place for the past 19 years. Security forces tried to put down unrest. Bouteflika has ruled the nation since 1999.

Bahrain: Protesters call for the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman Al-Khalifa rather than Kind Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa, who has the final say in politics. The kind ordered that each family in the tiny Gulf monarchy be given $ 3,000 to mark the 10th Anniversary of a national charter for reforms. More than 220 prisoners accused of toppling monarchy also released. On February 26, nation reshuffled its cabinet in a further attempt to appease the Shia Opposition that has staged days of protest against the Sunni led government.

Jordan: King Abdullah II sacked the government of Samir Rifai and named Maruf Bakhit Prime Minister. Bakhit;s Mission –take practical, quick and tangible steps to launch true political reforms, enhance Jordan’s democratic drive and ensure safe and decent living for all Jordanians.

Libya: Protesters demand that president Moammar Ghadafi, who has ruled for more than 40 years, steps down. Ghadafi offered to double salaries and released 110 suspected Islamic militants in an attempt to defuse public anger. His son Saif-al –Islam offered to with-hold attacks on regime opponents and negotiate UNSC slapped sanctions on the nation and referred cases to International Criminal Court.

Oman: Protestors demand political reforms. Man’s rules, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, replaced six Cabinet Ministers on February 27.

UN Resolution and the Libya:

      The military action in Libya, its legitimacy is already being questioned amid fears of another Iraq in the making. The Arab League, whose support was invoked by Britain and its allies as providing justification for the invasion, has been the first to criticize it saying the bombardment has gone beyond the United Nations Security Council remit which was limited to enforcing a “no-fly” zone.“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians,” Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League, said. The 22-member group is expected to meet soon to discuss its future strategy.

       There has also been criticism from India, Russia, China and a number of African states which have called for an African Union summit to discuss an “African solution” to the crisis, according to media reports. Even Americans were reported to be thinking of scaling down their role in the operation with Defence Secretary Robert Gates saying that while America would continue to be part of the coalition, it “will not have the pre-eminent role.”In Britain, which led the campaign for military intervention, there is inevitably nervousness despite a public show of bravado. The fact is that despite British claims there was never really a consensus on support for military action. Five leading nations, including two permanent members — China and Russia —besides India, Brazil and Germany, abstained from the vote on the U.N. resolution and made clear that they would not get involved in any armed intervention.Germany, reflecting the divisions in Europe, said the move was fraught with “considerable dangers and risks.” India thought there was not enough “credible” information to warrant military intervention and Brazil warned that it could actually harm civilians more than helping them.


      At an EU summit days before the U.N. vote, British Prime Minister David Cameron was isolated when he pressed for a military option with only French President Nicolas Sarkozy supporting the idea. At home, too, there was — and still is — considerable opposition to an Iraq-like adventure.Critics say the government's approach to the Libyan crisis has been amateurish, starting with Foreign Secretary William Hague's statement — in the first week of the revolt — that he had “seen some information” suggesting that Muammar Qadhafi was on his way to Venezuela “at this moment.” At one stage, Mr. Hague was struggling after a series of blunders — from the shambolic airlift of Libyan refugees to the botched “spy” mission to help anti-Qadhafi forces.Last summer, when he became Foreign Secretary he made a long and passionate speech outlining his plans for a new “distinctive” foreign policy, a sort of “Hague doctrine” that was meant to draw a line under the supposed failings of his Labour predecessors. His supporters sought to project him as the best thing that had happened to the Foreign Office after 13 years of Labour “misrule,” epitomised by the Iraq invasion. (Never mind Mr. Hague and his Conservative party fully backed the invasion and still justify it on the same grounds as Labour.)Nine months after that brave start, questions are being raised about his judgment and fitness for the job. The media are buzzing with speculation on the back of rumours that his party colleagues have already started positioning themselves in case he is forced to go.Education Secretary Michael Gove, former Times journalist transformed into a rising star of the Conservative party with close personal links to Mr. Cameron, is among those said to be eyeing his job. The only thing that apparently counts against him is his fear of flying which, given the amount of travelling a Foreign Secretary is expected to do, can be a fatal flaw.In the wake of the “spy” mission fiasco, Mr. Hague's position became so vulnerable that Mr. Cameron was forced to stand up in the Commons to defend him, describing him as an “excellent” Foreign Secretary. This after Downing Street was accused of trying to hang Mr. Hague out to dry when, initially, it tried to distance itself from the mission saying the Foreign Secretary had personally authorised it. Only after Mr. Hague made clear that it had the backing of the Prime Minister and the government appeared threatened with what The Daily Mail described as the makings of a “civil war” did Mr. Cameron intervene to defend his embattled Foreign Secretary.

       It was on Friday, March 4, that six members of the elite Special Air Service (SAS) and two junior British diplomats landed in a rebel-held area of Benghazi, eastern Libya, unannounced. The government said their aim was to establish contact with groups fighting the Qadhafi forces and assess their humanitarian needs. But in a farcical turn of events, the men were seized by the very people they had been sent to help. They were detained and taken to a military base reportedly in handcuffs.Their helicopter, weapons and telephones were confiscated. Rebel leaders were reported to be furious fearing that such interventions would be seized by the Qadhafi regime as evidence of western interference. It took frantic calls from London to senior rebel leaders to secure the men's release.The government faced more embarrassment after it emerged that a call by British Ambassador to Libya Richard Northern, appealing for the release of the captured men and apologising for their behaviour, was intercepted by the Libyan regime and broadcast on state television handing it a PR coup.

     Former Libyan Justice Minister Mostafa Abdel Jalil, who is now a commander of a rebel group, is heard telling Mr. Northern: “They made a big mistake, coming with a helicopter in an open area.” A stuttering Mr. Northern says: “I didn't know how they were coming.”

     The incident sparked widespread criticism with Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, saying the whole idea of sending such a mission was “bizarre.” It also opened up divisions within the ruling coalition with the Liberal Democrats joining the Opposition to attack the move. The former Lib Dem leader, Menzies Campbell, denounced it as an “ill-conceived, poorly planned and embarrassingly executed” operation.MPs wondered why the rebels were not informed of the team's mission if it had gone to meet them. Mr. Hague's claim that the mission collapsed because of a “misunderstanding” was greeted with mocking laughter in the Commons. So, what was the nature of the “misunderstanding” on which Mr. Hague blamed the mission's failure?It seems what happened was a replay of the events that led to the invasion of Iraq, when western governments willing to clutch at any straw that reinforced their claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction relied heavily on dodgy sources of intelligence.
According to The Sunday Times, the mission was conceived at the behest of an opposition figure, Abdul Fattah Younis, who hyped his influence among rebel groups. Mr. Younis was a Minister in the Qadhafi government until recently and though he has now joined the revolt he is still regarded with suspicion by main rebel groups. “When the members of MI6/SAS mission said they had come to see Younis, they may have increased their captors' suspicion,” the newspaper said.

     Eminent economist Howard Davies has been forced to resign as director of the London School of Economics because the university accepted funding from the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation under his watch; and the LSE itself has been dubbed the “Libyan School of Economics” amid unsubstantiated claims that it awarded Mr. Qadhafi's son Saif-al Qadhafi (an allegedly plagiarised) PhD in return for the £1.5 million from the Foundation. Lord Meghnad Desai, emeritus professor at LSE, one of the two academics who reviewed Mr. Qadhafi's thesis, says he is “hurt” that his academic “integrity” is being questioned.

     Every day, a new institution or individual is added to the “hall of shame” and there are calls for an investigation into its/his Libya “connection.” Yet until a few weeks ago, Britain took pride in bringing Mr. Qadhafi “out from the cold” and British companies were officially encouraged and helped to do business with Libya. Britain even sold it arms. As the Observer columnist Henry Porter pointed out, Libya had “teargas [equipment] made in Britain,” “Mirage F-1 planes, recently upgraded by the French,” and “C-130 H Hercules transport places from the U.S.” The prevailing wave of moral indignation was at odds, he suggested, with the trend over the past decade when everyone, it seemed, wanted to get into bed with Mr. Qadhafi.

select the part and click to print: