Janlokpal Bill would never be a remedy

“What’s this?” he asked. “These are royal carriages,” royal servants said with uneasy looks in their eyes “…for your conveyance,” they explained. The new caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz sternly said, “My mule is enough for my conveyance.” He ordered the whole royal stable to be sold and its amount to be surrendered to Baitul Maal (public exchequer). When he reached home he was very upset, his maid sensing the unusual tension asked the cause to which he replied, “What would be a better cause of being tensed than the fact that in the east and in the west not a single soul is there, for whose well-being and rights I am not responsible even if they do not demand, even if they do not claim.”

India has a plethora of problems – poverty, inflation, regional disparity, illiteracy, unemployment, discrimination against minorities/lower castes/women, terrorism, etc. Corruption is one of them. And it is for this menace of corruption that an overenthusiastic civil society has proposed a panacea – Janlokpal Bill. There are dramas, dialogues, dharnas, rallies, political fasts, etc. over this Bill. But let us suppose that the Bill is acceded to by the government in its totality or let’s suppose it passes with more rigorous provisions than those proposed by Anna and co. What would it result in? Between roars of laughter and thunderous applause a person asked the elite panel on NDTV India (in a programme Hum Log), “What would happen if this all powerful Lokpal would itself go corrupt? Would you then propose installation of a grand Lokpal? And if the same happened with that grand Lokpal; a grand grand Lokpal?” Thus the question: who-will-guard-the-guardians? – will continue to haunt each and every solution that is legally put to counter evils like corruption. So I propose a bill namely Umar bin Abdul Aziz bill, which is not legal in strictest sense of the term but besides eradicating corruption can solve all the above-mentioned problems the country is facing and that too within record time of a decade; and I can bet for that… Our leaders have just to step in the shoes of Umar bin Abdul Aziz and then… see the miracle.



CONDITIONAL OBEDIENCE

After being nominated caliph, Umar bin Abdul Aziz addressed the people from the pulpit: “O people, I have been nominated your caliph despite my unwillingness and without your consent. So here I am, I relieve you of your pledge (baiyat) that you have taken for my allegiance. Elect whomsoever you find suitable as your caliph.” People shouted in unison, “O Umar, we have full faith in you and we want only you as our caliph.” Umar bin Abdul Aziz continued his address, “O people, obey me till I obey Allah; and if I disobey Allah, you are not duty bound to obey me.”


CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME

The first thing Umar bin Abdul Aziz did as a caliph was to return ancestral fiefs (jagir) of the royal family to their actual owners. When he expressed his intention, his advisers told him, “If you would return these properties then how would you manage your personal and family expenses?” he replied, “I leave that to Allah.” The royal family exerted itself with all its might to dispirit his reforms but he was adamant. Beginning from his person and his family he tore away all the property documents with scissors and allotted them to its rightful owners from whom it had been snatched away in the past. Orders were sent to all the provinces for return of such properties immediately. Claiming the lost property was not as big a task as to claim pension or ration cards today in India; little evidence was enough. In many cases properties were returned to heirs as original owners had died. He was so strict in this regard that he offered his beloved wife a choice between divorce or returning the jewels and precious stones that her father had gifted her. The truthful lady had obviously chosen the latter.


PUBLIC FUNDS ARE PUBLIC’S

Baitul Maal had ceased to be the treasure of the king in the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. Its income and expenditure, both were regulated. All the impermissible sources of income were clogged and all extravagant expenditures were stopped. He abolished all the special stipends to the members of royal family.

To increase the amount of Baitul Maal, Hajjaj used to take poll tax (jizya) even from newly converted Muslims. Umar bin Abdul Aziz strictly put an end to this un-Islamic practice. Governors had to carry out this order, some of them complained of reduction of funds and that they had to take loan to pay regular stipends (it could be compared to balance of payment crisis that India faced in late 80s). Umar bin Abdul Aziz responded, “abolish jizya anyhow, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be to him) was sent as a prophet and not as a tax collector.” He abolished home tax, marriage tax, stamp tax and many other taxes as well.

Once during his reign a dirham, a single dirham went missing from Yemen’s Baitul Maal (think of ‘missing’ millions in India today). Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote to the official in charge that you do not appear to be dishonest (as one dirham is very paltry an amount) but I consider your negligence an offence. So on behalf of Muslims (read public) I ask you to swear in public by Lord Almighty that you are innocent.

Yazid bin Mehlab – Governor of Khurasan was promptly probed and dismissed by Umar bin Abdul Aziz on the charges of corruption.

Abu Bakr bin Hazm – Governor of Madinah submitted an application to the caliph demanding more funds for candlesticks, lamp glasses, paper, pen, ink, etc. for official work. Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote back in reply, “Remember the days when in the darkness of night, without any light, you used to tread all the way from your home to Masjid-e-Nabawi. Now surely you are better off. Make the point of your pen finer, write closely (leave little space between the lines). And be frugal in your public expenses.” (One can only think of the government servants’ extravagant usage of amenities that they are provided with in India; especially wastage of petrol, electricity, phone; even if petty things like ink and paper are not mentioned).

Besides, Umar bin Abdul Aziz made it mandatory to register every handicap of the empire and gave special stipends to each and every one of them. (I am recalling letters of severely handicap people, who being fed up with their penury, wrote to the President of India asking the permission for committing suicide).

Umar bin Abdul Aziz devoted a portion of the public exchequer to pay off the debt of the parsimonious people, who due to some reason could not pay off their loans. (At this moment, can anyone stop thinking of debt-ridden farmers of Vidarbha who are committing suicides for years as they cannot repay their loans and interests?)

In his reign food was provided as a basic right and state managed free stalls of food for poor and beggars. (…and what is the situation of starvation deaths in India? And how many in our country couldn’t afford two square meals a day?)

Umar bin Abdul Aziz ordered for construction of caravanserais and lodges for travellers throughout his reign. In these lodges one day and night stay with food was free for all the travellers. For those who were unwell this term was for two days and two nights. If some traveller had no money or means of transportation to return home, he was despatched home on the state expenses. (And today, if we lose our wallet i.e. if it is pick-pocketed – as often is the case – we couldn’t travel back home without resorting to begging for travel expenses in the first place).


MINORITY RIGHTS

Once for some official work a Muslim caught hold of a horse belonging to a dhimmi without giving him any pay. Umar bin Abdul Aziz ordered forty lashes to him for this oppression.

Once a dhimmi charged Prince Abbas bin Waleed of grabbing his land. Umar bin Abdul Aziz summoned Abbas. Abbas said: “I have been allotted this land by caliph Waleed and I have its papers with me.” Dhimmi said, “But I want justice according to the Book of God.” Umar bin Abdul Aziz pronounced his verdict, “The word of God (Qur’ān) is prior to the certificates of Waleed” and allotted the land to the dhimmi. (And now Muslims can only lament at the plight of their waqf lands in India!)

In Damascus a church was razed at the behest of some influential aristocratic Muslim family, and according to some narrations a mosque was erected in its place. Christians approached the court of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. He investigated their claim and had the settlement (a mosque?) demolished, making way for the church in its rightful place. (Babri Masjid! – no explanations are needed the very name spells tragedy of the minorities in this largest democratic country of the world).


DEALING WITH TERRORISM

Umar bin Abdul Aziz dismissed and banished Hajjaj’s whole family and aides from positions of power and authority as they were indulged in oppression and misdeeds. (Contrary is the case of India where our Narendra Modi is still in the saddle, and many officers who aggravated the riots with their indifference, inaction and sometimes actual rioting have actually got promotions for a job well done).

Due to frequent rebellion and anti-state movements in Umayyad dynasty; arrests, punishments even beheading on suspicion was tolerated. Umar bin Abdul Aziz abolished all this. In Mausil incidents of theft and burglary, due to various reasons, soared. Yahaya Ghassani – Governor of Mausil wrote to the caliph that, “Collecting evidences as per the standards of sharia is a tough task and without punishing people on doubt, crimes could not be curtailed.” Umar bin Abdul Aziz in his reply said, “Punish the offenders only when conclusive evidence is found. If truth cannot reform them, let them not be reformed.” Likewise, governor of Khurasan wrote that people of Khurasan were wild and rebellious in nature; and nothing but scourge and sword could control them. Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote in reply, “Your theory that nothing but scourge and sword could control your people is absolutely nonsensical. Truth and justice can control them; spread truth and justice in your reign (and see for yourself).” (I could not stop thinking of erstwhile TADA, POTA, AFSPA and various other so-called special acts in India that make a mockery of rule of law and human rights).

News reached Umar bin Abdul Aziz that some officials in Persia used to buy fruit from local farmers at a price lower than its market value. And that some tribes levy journey tax on travellers. Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote to the governor of the province, “I am sending an investigating commission to inquire into these matters; it will return the fruit to its owners and will take other necessary steps if complaints are found justifiable. Do not dare interrupting with its proceedings. And if I found that all this happened with your acquiescence or even with your tacit support then I will not spare you for sure.” (One can recollect at the moment the pot-bellied hawaldar that we could find in every street of India relishing tea, cigarette, paan, bidi, etc. – all for free).

Kharjites were staunch opponent of the Umayyad dynasty since the beginning. Despite great amount of blood spilling they still existed; though not powerful but they were still a nuisance. Umar bin Abdul Aziz invited them unconditionally for a dialogue. (Could Indian government even think of this in order to resolve the various regional disputes?) He wrote to them, “Come let’s debate, if we are true, accept our rule and if you are true then we would reconsider our position” (can India dare think of reconsidering its position in matters such disputes?). And finally when dialogues failed he allowed violent action as a last resort on the following conditions: 

1. Women, children, prisoners and the wounded should not be killed. Those who would run off from the battlefield must not be chased down.
2. Booty would be returned to the families of the enemy.
3. Prisoners will be held only till their repentance.

(I wonder what code of conduct our armed forces followed in Forbesganj? And who has given them licence to unleash atrocities of every kind and magnitude in Kashmir and North East?)

CHARACTER OF UMAR BIN ABDUL AZIZ
Umar bin Abdul Aziz once asked his wife, “Do you have a dirham? I feel like eating grapes.” His wife – empty-handed as she was – argued in a fit of anger, “You are caliph and you don’t even afford a dirham for yourself?” The Caliph said with a sigh, “It is easier for me than being handcuffed in the hell-fire.”

Despite strict orders to the contrary, perhaps a new servant heated the water for Umar bin Abdul Aziz’s ablutions, from the public mess (meant for state guests, poor and needy people). When Umar bin Abdul Aziz realised this after a month, he repaid that much amount of wood to the public exchequer.

Once he told his servant to roast meat. The servant roasted that in the public mess and came back. Umar bin Abdul Aziz told him, “Eat it, it was not in my destiny.”

Earlier Umar bin Abdul Aziz didn’t eat at the state mess but he was forced to eat there because of some guests who refused to eat in absence of the caliph. From then onwards he used to eat with guests in the public mess but always paid for every single diet.

In the night till the time he would perform state duties he would use a candle provided to him from Baitul Maal, but if in between he was interrupted with some personal task, he would put off that candle and either light his own or in its absence (as more often was the case) grope in darkness.

Once he was distributing apples when his small child came out and picked up an apple and was about to bite when Umar bin Abdul Aziz saw and snatched it away from him. When an inconsolable child complained to his mother she bought a few apples for him. When Umar bin Abdul Aziz returned home he smelled of apples and fearfully asked, “Any Baitul Maal’s apple had been brought in?” When his wife narrated the story, he said, “By God, I had not snatched that apple from his hand but from my heart itself. But I didn’t like that for an apple I would ruin my honesty before my Lord.”

Once musk from Baitul Maal was brought to him and he tightly closed his mouth and nose in order not to inhale its fragrance.

If a state is ruled with piety, sense of responsibility towards the ruled and sense of accountability towards the Almighty then it would result in an abode of happiness and paradise on earth where everybody is content and satisfied, where there is no oppression, no violation of human rights and no corruption. Umar bin Abdul Aziz in merely two-years--five-months period of his caliphate left an empire in which governors of the provinces had funds of zakat and sadaqa to distribute among the poor and the needy but they were not able to find one; an empire in which the amount of tax collected (despite so many unjust taxes abolished and leniency in collection) increased manifold compared to his predecessors’ reign; an empire where a governor complained to him that people are so happy and content that there is a fear that they would indulge in pride and conceit. Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote to him that, “When Allah would order people of paradise to enter paradise on the Day of Judgment he would order them to say Alhamdulillah (all the praise and thanks belong to the Allah). So you too tell your people to thank Allah for their present happiness.”

As we would have realised by now that we don’t need new incompetent laws, as we are already overflowing with them. We have only made laws since independence and made the existing ones more stringent at times. But to what avail? As new laws are blocking extant areas of corruption, new avenues are found out to defy their meaningfulness by our creative criminals of every stratum in the society. It is high time we realised that LAW ALONE IS NOT THE REMEDY. Laws are useless if we can defy them and get away with it. What is required is strengthening of the police – police within our heart. What is required is the belief in the CCTV cameras – the ones with which angels are recording our deeds no matter how many curtains behind we live. What is required is a faith in the court – court on the day of judgement in which despite all our influences we would be unable to bribe The Judge or to mislead Him. These are the articles of the Umar bin Abdul Aziz Bill that could be summarised in the following three points, 1. Faith in One Omnipotent and Omniscient Allah, 2. Faith in prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be to him), 3. Faith in the Day of Judgement. These beliefs manifest themselves in the character of Umar bin Abdul Aziz – and it is such type of characters that we lack in today, not anything else.

I have faith in humanity’s rational faculties. And so I bet that nobody if presented with an Umar bin Abdul Aziz bill would oppose its passage. The billion dollar question however is that: are we Muslims prepared to propose Umar bin Abdul Aziz bill with our deeds in the street and with our words in the parliament?

Khan Yasir in Radiance Weekly. Here

The Roots of India's Antigraft Churn

The country has changed in the last 20 years. But neither the government nor civil society gets it.

India is undergoing a political upheaval. Anger over high-level corruption has become widespread in the past year, adding to Indians' frustration with everyday petty corruption. In an environment where no political figure seemed credible, activist Anna Hazare stepped in earlier this year and led a campaign for an anticorruption watchdog. Last month, he used a 13-day hunger strike to get his way for legislation to create this watchdog.

That doesn't mean the tumult has ended. The elites in power are misdiagnosing the situation, throwing up tired answers to graft. But the alternative solutions offered by the likes of Mr. Hazare are out of touch too. Neither side seems to understand the kind of change India has experienced in the last two decades.

In the past, India's government ruled in relative secrecy and was ensconced in a rigid hierarchy. Even though New Delhi was accountable at the end of the day to the electorate, it presumed that the millions of files that documented the minutiae of regulations and ministerial actions would remain hidden from public gaze. It also presumed those affiliated with the central government wouldn't challenge it.

Twenty years ago, moreover, India's middle class was firmly allied with the state. These professionals held positions in the higher bureaucracy or in other state institutions.

The first tectonic movement is where the middle class stands today. They have been the biggest and most immediate beneficiaries of liberalization in the last twenty years. They have no reason today to stick up for the state. In fact, Mr. Hazare is joined by middle-class professionals, who have made the anticorruption movement savvy and media-friendly.

The watchdog Mr. Hazare is asking for would have the ability to go after almost any public official for wrongdoings: essentially one single institution, with a vast bureaucracy at its disposal and with overweening powers. This idea presumes that concentration of power is going to be more effective. But divided power is already generating better incentives for different institutions to hold each other in check. What's worse, Mr. Hazare makes no mention of economic or administrative reform, which would reform the role of the state in problematic sectors like telecom and mining.

This suggests that the battle against corruption is far from over. In fact, the great churning in Indian governance, as people search for better representatives to deliver growth without graft, has just begun. The movement Mr. Hazare galvanized may have erred in the direction in which it moved, but the sentiments underlying it are genuine.

The big risk here is that the likes of both Mr. Singh and Mr. Hazare will not understand the roots of this churning. India now has a government without credibility and a civil society offering non-solutions. At this rate, instead of artful reform, India will get draconian legislation.

Bhanu Pratap Mehta in Wall Street Journal. Here

Anna Hazare wants to subvert democracy

A theory has been put forth, and is being recycled continuously, that it is the political awakening of the new Indian middle class, a middle class often decried for its apathy towards the Indian state and democracy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is not the political engagement of the new middle class with India’s democratic system and processes. It is in fact a rejection of India’s democratic politics of 64 years. The message driven home has been: the elections and elected representatives don’t matter, the middle class votes don’t matter — because in any case, either the poor sell the vote or the rich buy out the politicians. There is no need for middle class to engage with the system. The system should instead be captured or subverted by street protests and public blackmails, with the help of the news television channels which can act as a force multiplier. When you mobilise supporters telling them that their votes don’t matter, and only street protests and blackmail do, these people are not going to stand up in queue to vote in the next elections.

It is for this precise reason that the current agitation is different from the earlier political movements in this country —- one led by Jai Prakash Narayan against the emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1975, and the other launched by Mr. V.P. Singh against corruption in 1987. Both were ‘political’ movements where the leaders were proposing an alternative political formulation in front of the electorate. By seeking votes against the ruling establishment, they were reposing their faith in India’s democratic system. In contrast, Mr. Hazare’s handlers are self-righteous activists with a disdain for politics and politicians. The basic belief arising from the nature of their work with the NGOs is that politics and government cannot deliver, and only they can do a better job. In following their beliefs, the current movement is being assiduously apolitical, where its leadership is subverting — if not overtly rejecting — the democratic institutions like the Parliament and established legislative processes.

With its implicit message of subversion in a democracy, it illustrates the paradox of the current movement. The enthusiasm and commitment of the people in coming to the streets for a non-sectarian cause in a democracy is breathtaking. Yet this is a movement without an agenda beyond pushing its own version of the Jan Lok Bill. It could bend towards a new political party the way V.P. Singh’s Jan Morcha evolved into the Janata Dal, or it could be sophisticatedly co-opted by the UPA government as a new National Advisory Council. The essential truth is that nobody can predict just where this upheaval is heading. The political parties are being wise in moving carefully — and avoiding the facile embrace of a movement whose trajectory is unknown.

We are in the danger of ending up with an even more disillusioned and disenchanted middle class which doesn’t believe in a social contract with the Indian State. While the existing social contract seems to have lapsed, there are no alternatives being articulated by the leaders of the current movement.

A scathing comment on Anna Hazare by Pragmatic Desi. Here

Top Ten Reasons Anna Hazare shouldn't have waged a war on corruption

Top Ten Reasons Anna Hazare shouldn't have waged a war on corruption

10. Corruption is omnipresent in India.

9. Without giving bribe nothing happens in India. You cannot get your birth certificate or death certificate without giving bribe. You cannot get cremated without giving bakshish..

8. Indira Gandhi has famously said once that corruption is international phenonmenon.

7. Corruption is ingrained in the blood of Indian.

6. Indians would prefer to bribe the TT and get themselves a berth or seat rather than altering the travel plan.

5. Corrupt practices are part and parcel of the Indian mythologies. Remember When Karna took his powerful weapon, Nagastra and shot it at Arjuna. Krishna saved Arjuna from certain death by his divine powers; by subtly lowering Arjuna’s chariot into the earth, through a gentle pressure of his feet.

4. Hypocricy is ingrained in the blood of Indian. India is the only country where everything from river to wealth and knowledge are worshipped as female gods. India is also the only country to have massacred crores of girl childs in a decade 

3. Corruption cannot be eradicated by framing stringent laws alone. In India there is a law that those who indulge in spurious drugs should be hanged to death. Not a single soul has been hanged till today. The spurious drug industry is thriving with 5000 crore turnover annually. Besides nobody could deny the threat of it being misused. Janlokpal Bill would become another POTA or TADA

2. Indians would find ways and means to buy Lokpal or Janlokpal whatever.

1. There are more pressing issues facing the nation: Suicides of farmers, scarcity of drinking water, rising unemployment, threat of Hindu Fascism, collapse of family system, onslaught of western culture etc.

 Wake up Anna Hazares! It is better late than never.

We are ready to give bribe. But we want the corrupt to be punished.

The best thing about Indian politicians is that they make you feel you are a better person. Not surprisingly, Indians often derive their moral confidence not through the discomfort of examining their own actions, but from regarding themselves as decent folks looted by corrupt, villainous politicians.

This is at the heart of a self-righteous middle-class uprising against political corruption, a television news drama that reached its inevitable climax in Delhi on Tuesday when the rural social reformer Anna Hazare was about to set out for his death fast — the second one he has attempted this year to press his demand for a powerful anti-corruption agency.

He was arrested by the police, ostensibly in the interest of law and order.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his Independence Day address to the nation on Monday, took digs at Mr. Hazare and his tactic of using hunger strikes to twist the arm of an elected government. Mr. Singh said that he did not have “a magic wand” to end corruption in India.

The anti-corruption movement has the simplicity of a third-rate fable.

There are the good guys (the reformers and the average Indian citizen) and the bad guys (the politicians). But the real story is not a fable but art cinema.

Indians have a deep and complicated relationship with corruption. As in any long marriage, it is not clear whether they are happily or unhappily married. The country’s economic system is fused with many strands of corruption and organized systems of tax evasion. The middle class is very much a part of this.

Most Indians have paid a bribe. Most Indian businesses cannot survive or remain competitive without stashing away undeclared earnings.

Almost everybody who has sold a house has taken one part of the payment in cash and evaded tax on it.

Yet, the branding of corruption is so powerful that Indians moan the moment they hear the word. The comic hypocrisy of it all was best evident in the past few months as the anti-corruption movement gathered unprecedented middle-class support.
... ... .... ..... ...

Behind the power of India’s anti-corruption movement is the rise of a new emotion: Young urban Indians are more interested in their nation than ever before. As a consequence they are more politically aware.

Seven years ago, I went around Mumbai asking fashionably dressed college students questions like, “Who is the deputy prime minister of India?” Often, I was faced with long, embarrassed silences, or “Oh my God, quiz question.”

When I asked a young Muslim woman the question “Who is Narendra Modi?” she said she had not heard the name before. Mr. Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat, was then and still is accused of assisting riots that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Muslims.

Today, there is a perceptible increase in the number of young people who are acutely aware and interested in the fate of the nation. That is because they are different from the generations before them whose only objective in life was to escape India. Now that the world is what it is, there is no place to escape to. So they want their home to be a better place — where bribe-takers are punished and bribe-payers live happily ever after.

Manu Joseph in The New York Times. Here