In the democracy, who is more powerful : Parliament or People -A retrospect to Anna movement

Although democracy is a holistic phenomenon and its different components are interconnected, its three main attributes can be identified as political, economic and cultural equality. These three attributes collectively contribute to the make-up of a healthy democratic regime, and consequently the success of democracy depends upon the extent to which these equalities are respected and implemented. The vibrancy of a functioning democracy, therefore, would depend upon the social acceptance of the idea of equality, which as a principle the Indian Republic has written into its Constitution. Yet, in practice equality is a far cry in any of these three domains.

This condition raises the question whether the prevalence of institutional structures is a sufficient guarantee to ensure democratic rights. This question is pertinent in the Indian context as, despite institutional support, the functioning of Indian democracy during the last 63 years has perpetuated and deepened differences within society.
Parliament's unanimous adoption of a resolution agreeing “in principle” with Team Anna's position on the three sticking points that prolonged the standoff on the Lokpal legislation is a triumph for the anti-corruption mood in the country — and for the Gandhian technique of non-violent mass agitation on issues of vital concern to the people. Anna Hazare and his team deserve full credit for recognising and riding this popular mood, which showed plenty of signs of becoming a wave; for giving concrete shape to the inchoate aspirations of the movement against corruption through the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill; and for working out a strategy and tactics that refused to compromise on the core issues but knew when to raise the stakes and when to settle.

As for the political players, the major opposition parties did well to recognise the soundness of the core demands of Team Anna and keep up the pressure on the government. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the politically savvy elements in the United Progressive Alliance regime can also take some credit for the way they finally acted to resolve this crisis.

What is clear to everyone — except the unreconstructed elements within the political system who have long been opposed to a strong, independent, and effective statutory authority to go after corruption at all levels — is that the Lokpal Bill that was introduced in Parliament by the government and is now before a Standing Committee lies thoroughly discredited. The government must not be guided by those in its ranks who advocate some kind of rearguard action in committee or on the floor of the House to go back on commitments made. The fact is that in sum, that is, in the parliamentary resolution and during the preceding rounds of discussion with Team Anna, the government conceded the following key demands. In addition to Ministers, Members of Parliament (subject to Article 105 of the Constitution), and Group ‘A' officers, the Prime Minister at one end and the lower bureaucracy at the other will be brought under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Secondly, under the same statute, strong and effective Lokayuktas on the same model as the Lokpal will be established in all States. Team Anna contends that no constitutional problem is involved here since the Lokpal legislation deals with substantive and procedural criminal law, which is covered by Entries 1 and 2 of the Concurrent List in the Constitution. The bottom-line is that it makes no sense to have a strong and effective Lokpal to investigate and prosecute central public servants for corruption while having defunct or no Lokayuktas in States. Thirdly, the Lokpal legislation will provide for a grievance redressal system, requiring all public authorities to prepare a citizen's charter and make commitments to be met within a specified time frame. Constitutionally speaking, these arrangements are covered by Entry 8 of the Concurrent List dealing with actionable wrongs. Whether the Lokpal or another authority established under the same law will oversee this grievance redressal system remains an open question. For its part, Team Anna has agreed that judges need not come under the Lokpal provided a credible and independent Judicial Conduct Commission, free from conflict of interest and empowered to investigate and prosecute charges of corruption against judges, is established by law. Unfortunately, the contentious issue of a selection committee for the Lokpal could not be resolved. But considering that virtually everyone outside the UPA seems opposed to the official Lokpal Bill's provision that the government will nominate five of the nine members of the selection committee, this can probably be regarded as a dead letter.

There are some excellent provisions in the Jan Lokpal Bill that have gone mostly unnoticed. For instance, Section 6(o) provides that the Lokpal can recommend the cancellation or modification of a lease, licence, permission, contract or agreement obtained from a public authority by corrupt means; if the public authority rejects the recommendation, the Lokpal can “approach [the] appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to be given to the public authority.” It can also press for the blacklisting of those involved in acts of corruption. Then there is Section 31(1), which stipulates that “no government official shall be eligible to take up jobs, assignments, consultancies, etc. with any person, company, or organisation that he had dealt with in his official capacity.” Section 31(2) provides that “all contracts, public-private partnerships, transfer by way of sale, lease, and any form of largesse by any public authority shall be done with complete transparency and by calling for public tender/auction/bids unless it is an emergency measure or where it is not possible to do so for reasons to be recorded in writing.” And Section 31(3) requires that “all contracts, agreements or MOUs known by any name related to transfer of natural resources, including land and mines to any private entity by any method like public-private partnerships, sale, lease or any form of largesse by any public authority shall be put on the website within a week of being signed.”
In appraising what has happened over the past fortnight, a red herring needs to be got out of the way — the idea of the ‘supremacy of Parliament' versus everyone who comes up against it. Parliamentarians who assert this need to learn their Constitution. In India, unlike Britain, Parliament is not supreme; the Constitution is. Nor is law-making “the sole prerogative” of Parliament. The significant victory of the anti-corruption campaigners gives political India a rare opportunity to translate fine anti-corruption sentiments into a potent law that can be a game-changer. The challenge before the people of India is to ensure, by keeping up the pressure, that in the tricky business of law making in committee and on the floor of the Houses of Parliament a potentially powerful instrument is not blunted.

~Ideas collected from various articles (especially from The Hindu and Frontline)

What does the Peace mean in Modern World?

In general, peace describes a society or a relationship that is operating harmoniously and without violent conflict. Trade and commerce, which is an integral part of modern civilization and is essential for livelihood of common people, can progress only when there is no fear. In the words of Dr. R. N. Tagore
“Where the mind is without fear and head is held high,
Where the world has not broken up by narraow domestic walls….”
The abovementioned lines clearly depict a picture of peace. The common and basic needs of people viz. food, clothing and shelter can be fulfilled only when peace prevails. Our country India has been a worshipper of peace and non violence since the time long.Peace is commonly understood as the absence of hostility, or the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, safety in matters of social or economic welfare, the acknowledgment of equality, and fairness in political relationships. In international relations, peacetime is the absence of any war or conflict.
The time has come to look into the peace perspectives not from the view of a nationhood rather it should be take into the consideration the whole humanity. I mean to say that while dealing with international peace problem e.g. Terrorism, Naxalism, insurgency and religion fundamentalism, the interests of humanity as a whole (whole world) should be taken into consideration.
Patriotism is good but humanity and brotherhood is far better. No country should promote terrorism or spread venom against other country on the shake of patriotism or religious fundamentalism.
Even within country people indulge into violence stating that they are not getting their full rights. It should be promoted that people should take care of other’s rights too while demanding their own. They should not interfere with the rights of others. Because an eye for an eye is making the whole world blind. Naxalism and Maosim which is claiming lives of thousands of innocent people every year in India is a result of this. Peace is a necessary condition for a nation and society to develop and prosper. Peace in the home country as well at international level is must for the mankind to prosper.

Our neighbouring country Nepal is suffering from political unstability. It has hampered the growth of the country at all levels. People’s lives have been greatly affected. It has led to the violation of human rights, murders, loot and chaos etc.
A stable government is needed. More important is a need of constitution for the new nation. The international agencies such as UN and other NGOs working may spread awareness about the new form of government and importance of constitution. Solution for new constitution may be that a council be formed to compile the constitution. Noted people from every field of life like politics, journalism technocrats, diplomats etc of Nepal and a team of unbiased and fair people from United Nation should included in the council. Role of youth is utmost important. Youth leaders should be there to represent the future Nepal. While framing the constitution, care should be taken to consider the interests of people from all walks of life. As per the present situation in Nepal, it is highly recommended that a unbiased team of intelligent people from UN should be there to guide the process and most important function of this team will be to stop the friction during the framing of constitution between Maoists and political party representatives of Nepal.
Then after framing of constitution, it will be easier for the people to choose the government through a fair election process. Also it will be easier for the present government to function in a way as to promote peace and progress of the country. Initially to enforce the constitution Nepal may need the peace keeping force to tackle the Maoists iff they are unsatisfied with the new constitution or the new government.
Thus in this way only a beautiful country of the world can be taken onto the path of peace and progress and common people of the country will be relieved and enjoy their rights..