The Indian freedom movement was perhaps the greatest mass movement in world history. After 1919, it was built around the notion that people had to and could play an active role in politics and in their own liberation, and it succeeded in politicizing, and drawing into political action a large part of the Indian people. Gandhiji, the leader who moved and mobilized millions into politics, all his life propogated the view that the people and not leaders created a mass movement, whether for the overthrow of the colonial regime or for social transformation. He added, though, that the success or failure of a movement depended a great deal on the quality of leadership.

Satyagraha, as form a struggle, was based on the active partipation of the people and on the sympathy and support of the non-participating millions. In fact, unlike a violent revolution, which could be waged by a minority of committed cadres and fighters a non-violent revolution needed the political mobilization of millions and the passive support of the vast majority.

It may be pointed out, parenthically, that it was because of the long experience of this kind of political participation by common people that the founders of the Indian republic, who also led the freedom struggle in its last phase, could repose full faith in their political capacity. The leaders unhesitatingly introduced adult franchise despite widespread poverty and illiteracy….

…. In a mass-based struggle, ideology and its influence plays a critical role. Yet, a mass movement has also to incorporate and accommodate diverse political and ideological currents in order to mobilize millions. Besides, it has to be disciplined and organizationally strong and united; yet it cannot afford to be monolithic or authoritarian.

Recognizing this duality, Congress, under whose leadership and hegemony the anti-imperialist struggle was waged was highly ideological and disciplined while also being ideologically and organizationally open-ended and accommodative. Representing the Indian people and not any one class or stratum, Congess could not be and was not ideologically homogenous. Widely different ideological and political streams coexisted within it. It is significant that at no stage did Gandhiji claim to have an ideological monopoly over it. Congress, therefore, succeeded in uniting persons of different ideological bents, different levels of commitment and of vastly different capacities to struggle together for some broad common objectives and principles.

Congress was able to achieve this task by functioning democratically. There was a constant public debate and contention between individuals and groups who subscribed to divergent political-ideological tendencies or paradigms, even though they shared many elements of a common vision and were united in struggle. The majority view regarding the strategic and tactical framework of the movement prevailed but the minority was not decimated. It remained part of the movement, hoping one day to have its approach accepted. Even groups and movements which were outside the Congress stream evolved a complex and friendly relationship with it. The communal, casteist and loyalist parties and groups were the only ones to adopt an adversarial approach towards the Congress.

The national movement thus bequeathed to independent India the political tradition of compromise, accommodation and reconciliation of different interests and points of view. Nehru worked within this tradition in evolving national policies after independence.

The highest norms of politics and political behavior were set by the movement. Its major leaders, for example, Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Lokmanya Tilak, Gandhiji, Bhagat Singh, Jawaharlal Nehru, Suhbas Bose, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari, Acharya Narendra Dev, Jayaprakash Narayan possessed moral integrity of the highest order. It was because of this moral authority and high moral standards of the leadership that the movement could mobilize millions. This was also true of the cadres, most of whom gave up their careers, their studies and their jobs, abandoned family life and devoted their entire lives to the movement. Also, judged in its totality, the movement was able to maintain harmony between means and ends. The movement was able to develop the capacity to evolve renovate and change with the times. Its programme and policies underwent continuous change and moved in a radical direction in response to the urges of the masses as they were awakened to political activity and to the changing policies of the colonial rulers. The movement was, therefore, in many ways highly original and innovative, keeping abreast with contemporary world thought, processes and movements.

The legacy of the national movement could be summarized as: a commitment to political and economic independence, modern economic development, the ending of inequality, oppression and domination in all forms, representative democracy and civil liberties, internationalism and independent foreign policy, promotion of the process of nation-in-the-making on the basis of joyous acceptance of the diversity, and achievement of all of these objectives though accommodative politics and with the support of a large majority of the people.

Independent India has as a whole remained loyal to the basics of the legacy of the national movement, a large part of which is enshrined in the constitution and incorporated in the programmes and manifestos of most of the political parties. The Indian people have tended to use this legacy as the yardstick to judge the performance of governments political parties and institutions.

A legacy, especially of a prolonged movement, tends to endure for a long time. But no legacy, however strong and sound, can last forever. It tends to erode and become irrelevant unless it is constantly reinforced and developed and sometimes transcended in a creative manner to suit the changing circumstances.

Extracts from the AICC Resolution, Karachi, March 1931

Mahatma Gandhi moved the resolution on the declaration of Fundamental Rights. The text was drafted by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru:

This Congress is of opinion that to enable the masses to appropriate what ‘swaraj’, as conceived by the Congress, will mean to them, it is desirable to state the position of the Congress in a manner easily understood by them. In order to end the ‘exploitation of the masses, political freedom must include real economic freedom of the starving millions. The Congress, therefore, declares that any constitution which may be agreed to on its behalf should provide, or enable the Swaraj Government to Provide, for the following:

Fundamental Rights and Duties

Fundamental rights of the people, including:

Every citizen of India has the right of free expression of opinion, the rights of free association and combination, and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, for purposes not opposed to law or morality.

Every citizen shall enjoy freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess and practise his religion, subject to public order and morality.

The culture, language and script of the minorities and of the different linguistic areas shall be protected.

All citizens are equal before the law, irrespective of caste, creed or sex.

No disability attaches to any citizen, by reason of his or her religion, caste, creed or sex, in regard to public employment, office of power or honour, and in the exercise of any trade or calling.

All citizens have equal rights and duties in regard to wells, tanks, roads, schools and places of public resort, maintained out of State or local funds, or dedicated by private persons for the use of the general public.

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, in accordance with regulations and reservations made in that behalf.

No person shall be deprived of his liberty nor shall his dwelling or property be entered, sequestered or confiscated, save in accordance with law.

The State shall observe neutrality in regard to all religions.

The franchise shall be on the basis of universal adult suffrage.

The State shall provide for free and compulsory primary education.

The State shall confer no titles.

There shall be no capital punishment.

Every citizen is free to move throughout India and to stay and settle in any part thereof, to acquire property and to follow any trade or calling, and to be treated equally with regard to legal prosecution or protection in all parts of India.

OUR CONSTITUTION

GRANVILLE AUSTIN, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION – THE CORNERSTONE OF A NATION

"Democracy, representative government, personal liberty, equality before the law, were revolutionary for the society. Socio-economic equitableness as expressed in the Directive Principles of State Policy was equally revolutionary. So were the Constitution’s articles abolishing zamindari and altering property relations and those allowing for discrimination in education and employment for disadvantaged citizens."

"The founding fathers and mothers established in the Constitution both the nation’s ideals and the institutions and processes for achieving them… The new society was to be achieved through a socio-economic revolution pursued with a democratic spirit using Constitutional, democratic institutions…"

"The political structure of the Indian Constitution is so unusual that it is impossible to describe it briefly. Characterisations such as ‘quasi-federal’ and ‘statutory decentralisation’ are interesting, but not particularly illuminating. The members of the Assembly themselves refused to adhere to any theory or dogma about federalism. India had unique problems, they believed, problems that had not ‘confronted other federations in history’. These could not be solved by recourse to theory because federalism was ‘not a definite concept’ and lacked a ‘stable meaning’. Therefore, Assembly members, drawing on the experience of the great federations like the United States, Canada, Switzerland, and Australia, pursued the ‘the policy of pick and choose to see (what) would suit (them) best, (what) would suit the genius of the nation best... This process produced... a new kind of federalism to meet India’s peculiar needs."

India Since Independence by Bipin Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee and Aditya Mukherjee.

The decision of the Constituent Assembly to have federal constitution with a strong Centre was occasioned also by the circumstances in which it was taken. A strong central government was necessary for handling the situation arising out the communal riots that preceded and accompanied Partition, for meeting the food crisis, for settling the refugees, for maintaining national unity and for promoting social and economic development, which had been thwarted under colonial rule.

The constitution has also tried to minimize conflict between the Union and the states by clearly specifying the legislative powers of each. It contains three lists of subjects. The subject listed in the Union list can only be legislated upon by the Union parliament, the ones in the State list only by the state legislatures, and those in the Concurrent List come within the purview of both, but in case of a conflict between Union and state legislation, the Union law will prevail.

Focus on Panchayati Raj', Rajiv Gandhi's speech (in Hindi) while inaugurating the Panchayati Raj Sammelan of Northern states, New Delhi, January 27, 1989

I am happy to attend this Sammelan. First, I wish to thank the Ministry for choosing such an appropriate day for this Sammelan, which falls between our 40th Republic Day and the anniversary of the martyrdom of Gandhiji. When we adopted our Constitution on the first Republic Day, we promised to give power to the people. Gandhiji fought against the British, the imperialist forces, for achieving this object. I am particularly happy that we have got an opportunity to discuss this seriously during the next two days. I have a complaint which I wanted to make in the end, but I am making at the outset. Bhajan Lalji has invited eight thousand people to come to Delhi but he has fixed only two days and one night for discussions. I am told that the entire time will be utilised if only two per cent of the invites speak for five minutes each. I feel that in such a short duration we cannot discuss these matters well. I hope Bhajan Lalji will extend the Sammelan by another two days, to enable at least double the number of speakers to express their views. I hope he will do so and will also extend the arrangements in the camp.

After Independence, we had promised in the Constitution, to strengthen the third level of our democracy. The first and the second levels which are governed from Delhi and the State capitals have been. Strengthened following several elections, and no one can weaken them. The third level, however, is weak, and it affects the first two levels also, because, people at the top level have become paper tigers and the structure has become hollow. This has to be set right by strengthening the Panchayati Raj institutions. To strengthen our democracy in Delhi and in the State capitals, it is essential to strengthen the democratic institutions at the Panchayat level. To gear up the development process, it is necessary to strengthen the Panchayati Raj institutions at district, block and village levels.

In the last one-and-a-half year we have done many things in this context. We began by organising discussions with the District Magistrates and Collectors. We talked to the Secretaries and the Chief Secretaries. There were discussions in our Party and in the Ministries. We have come to you after doing our home work. I hope we will help you and fulfil the promises we had made. Promises were made during the freedom struggle and in our Constitution but no one effectively implemented them. The people at the top level were busy strengthening their own positions in politics as well as in administration and completely neglected the federal institutions. Whenever elections to the Panchayats were held, they remained nominal. And for the last 10-20 years, mostly nominated members are running these institutions (Panchayats). This cannot strengthen the base level. The devolution of power to the grassroots level as promised could not be effected and whatever was done was generally in an arbitrary manner. In some States where devolution of power had been implemented a member was nominated to the local bodies by the administration or a Minister was placed there. What actually happened? The decision-making authority remained either with the State Government or with the administration, and it could not filter down to the base level.

In addition, sufficient resources were not made available for the upliftment of the rural population, and the meagre amount provided was not spent according to the needs of the rural people. In our development planning and implementation, the participation of the Panchayati Raj institutions was lacking. What was the net result? The result was that the power—which Gandhiji and Panditji wanted to be given to the people and for which our Constitution also provided—did not actually reach them. It meant that the plans and the schemes made, could not in reality cater to your needs. The development programmes which were worked out from Delhi and the State capitals could neither improve your conditions nor remove your difficulties. The result was that even after the completion of those schemes; their full benefit could not reach you.

Whatever economic development was achieved could not be effective because there was a vast gap between the preparation of the schemes and their implementation. The result was that even for the solution of trifling issues, the people looked to the Government. I can quote the example of my own constituency which I have known minutely as to how people come to me even with small problems. There must be some lacuna somewhere that MPs, MLAs and even Chief Ministers come to me with trifling matters: Those issues which can be tackled at the village level should be dealt with there. If the Central Government is involved in such issues, what requires to be done can neither done well nor in time. You know, there are many procedural requirements in the implementation of a project which involves many people, and these only create problems. When we attempt rural development from Delhi, we are unable to detect all the loopholes which only you can plug, being on the spot. The result is that you come with complaints that development schemes are not being properly implemented.

We must ensure that our people are not totally dependent on the Central Government or the State Governments for all types of development works. They should themselves have a feeling of participation in development programmes and the process of social change. This will require that the gap between the administration and the people be bridged. We have to see that people, whether they are in politics or in Government, should not rush to Delhi or State capitals for the redressal of every grievance. If development work can be planned at the district, block or village level it should be taken up there itself. If this is not done, schemes will be delayed and so will their implementation.

We wanted to remove social injustice and atrocities on the weaker sections but this task has not yet been completed. Even today atrocities are perpetrated on weaker sections, on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and on women. We want to involve people in nation building. We want everyone in the country to take initiative in such work. This, however, has not been fully accomplished and the result is that a system of power-brokers has emerged in our country, whether it is politics or the development process. For any work that is to be done, people have to please some power-broker. We have to break this system and to do this; we have to devolve maximum power to Panchayati Raj institutions. This was the desire of Gandhiji and Panditji. But that spirit got lost on the way. We will, however, try to give you strength on the lines Gandhiji and Panditji wanted.

It is essential to give power to the common people. We have to pay special attention to the weaker sections, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women. We have also to take special care of linguistic and other minorities and protect them. We have also to keep a watch so that devolution of power to grassroots is not usurped by the rich and those who derive power from the caste structure. The Panchayati Raj system should ensure social justice to the poor, to the weaker sections. I would like to have your suggestions on these issues.

I want you to speak openly on these issues during the four days of the Sammelan. But you should remember that whatever system of devolution of power is evolved, it must ensure protection of the weak. The elections should be held in time and the weaker sections should freely participate in the elections. If need be, some sort of reservation could be evolved. You have to think how to fill the reserved seats or posts. Should these be filled by election or by nomination? Should we follow the procedure adopted in some countries where the candidate defeated with the minimum margin is also declared elected? Or should we adopt some other method? Every system has its own strong points.

There are various systems—each with its own weakness and strength. You have to consider these systems from different angles.You have to pay special attention to the weaker sections and tell me how they can be helped. Another method can be what was, at one time, in vogue for elections to the Lok Sabha, the system of multi-member constituencies. Yet another method could also be one of setting up social justice committees and special committees in areas inhabited by Harijans, Adivasis, minorities and other weaker sections.

You have to discuss seriously and evolve some kind of a relationship between Panchayati Raj institutions and the State Governments. You have to discuss it minutely because any mistake can stop the development process. You have to ponder over the relationship of Collectors and District Magistrates with Zila Parishads and their Chairmen. Again, you have to think which institutions would function under the Zila Parishad, under the block and at village level.

You must discuss how development schemes can he implemented most effectively. You should not be engaged in creating small kingdoms because these will only further weaken us. The relationship of municipal areas with Zila Parishads is an important factor, whether they should maintain equal status with Zila Parishads. or work within them or under them. Each system has its own strength and weakness. If a district government is formed, it will strengthen the Zila Parishad. Small towns within such a set-up will become focal points of development. On the other hand if Zila Parishads are kept outside the district administration it will focus greater attention on the development of rural areas. Both the systems are relevant in their own way. You have to find out a way so that a balance can be maintained. Today it is not sufficient only to plan for the development of rural areas. Educated youth are looking for a different type of employment and better facilities for which they migrate to small towns and cities. You must evolve a framework that draws upon the strengths of the alternative systems. You must evolve a system which accelerates the work of removing poverty. You must discuss what role can be played at the district, block and village levels in the planning process.

I have asked the Planning Commission to formulate plans from the district level for the Eighth Plan. They have assured that a beginning will be made. Constraints of time may not permit us to make a beginning on the scale we had envisaged but we will find a way out. I hope that by the second or third year of the Eighth Plan, this work will get off the ground well and that there will be co-ordination between the State Planning bodies and the Planning Commission.

Then, there is the major problem of resources. You must ensure proper utilization of resources. I feel that if we keep on giving resources we are doing today, that will not lead to proper development. You will keep on asking for funds and nobody will see whether work is being carried out properly or not. For the most part you do not keep in view your actual requirements when funds are made available from very far away and programmes are also made at some distant place. You have your eye on what is surplus with the Government and what you can get from it. The other point is that these funds are not linked with raising resources. That is why you must find out whether at the district and lower levels some resources can be raised. Whether you can be given some powers to raise revenue and in what way could these be given.

You will also have to discuss how power will be devolved. When the Panchayati Raj system was initiated, the responsibility of giving power to local bodies was with the States. Often power given by one hand was taken away by the other. This should not happen again. How should the power be given to you? Straight from the Centre or from the States to the local bodies? No one should be able to take this power away from you. Should the Constitution be amended and in what manner and to what extent? What is the minimum amendment required and what is the maximum that should be done? At the very minimum, timely elections to panchayats must be ensured and these bodies should not be dissolved without valid reasons. If for some reason they are dissolved, there should be a provision for their re-election as is the case for our Lok Sabha or State Assemblies. This is the minimum requirement. There can also be much more. You must reflect which is the best middle path and how we can reach it. We do not want to give you Panchayati Raj institutions as they were. We want to renew and strengthen the institutions that we give you, so that elections are held in time and real power is in your hands. We have also to learn from the past 25 years of experience, what we could achieve and what we could not, where the weakness lies and how it can be remedied. Responsibilities should be well defined and resources should be properly allocated to you. Above all we must ensure that weaker sections are protected and that they are not weakened by this system but in fact gain strength from it.

I hope this new system will cater to the actual needs of the people. It must ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. I hope that democracy will reach the grassroots. To achieve this object, we have to break the hold of power-brokers and give real power to the districts, blocks and villages—to the people who, live there.

Even a four-day period for such discussions is not sufficient and therefore, a questionnaire has been given to you. I hope you will study the questionnaire seriously, complete it and return it to us. I assure you that we will go through the questionnaires filled up by you, thoroughly and try to incorporate your suggestions.

I hope that I shall be with you again on the fourth day and for a longer period. I have kept two and a half hours apart to be with you. I have spoken a lot today, but on that day I will speak less and listen more to you. And I hope that you will speak openly without any reservation.

I see that only a few women are present here. I hope Bhajan Lalji will see to it that women delegates get full opportunity for expressing their views. In the end, I welcome you to Delhi, and I hope that the arrangement made for your stay here is comfortable, inspite of the chilly weather. If there are any shortcomings, do please let us know and we will try our best to remove these. I saw you sitting in two blocks yesterday in the Republic Day function. I am sure you must have enjoyed the parade.

It is appropriate that you visited the Samadhi of Gandhiji before beginning your deliberations. You have before you very significant work—work linked with the thoughts and ideals of Gandhiji and an integral part of our freedom struggle, which in a way was left out and must be completed now. I give you my good wishes for the success of your discussions. When I meet you on the fourth day of the Sammelan, I hope to get from you good and solid answers to the questions which I have posed before you.

Madam Speaker,

I have been deeply distressed at the developments of the last few days. Many aspects of the situation have caused me anguish. We are all aware that corruption is pervasive. It operates at every level. The poor may carry its greatest burden but it is an affliction that every Indian is desperate to be rid off. Fighting corruption is as integral to eliminating poverty as is Mahatma Gandhi NREGA or the Land Acquisition Bill. Yet it is equally imperative to the growth and development of our nation.

Madam Speaker, we cannot wish away corruption by the mere desire to see it removed from our lives. This requires a comprehensive framework of action and a concerted political program supported by all levels of the state from the highest to the lowest. Most importantly, it requires firm political will.

Madam Speaker, in the past few years I have travelled the length and breadth of our country. I have met scores of countrymen, rich and poor, old and young, privileged and disempowered who have expressed their disillusionment to me.

In the last few months, Annaji has helped the people to articulate this same sentiment. I thank him for that. I believe that the real question before us as representatives of the people of India today is whether we are prepared to take the battle against corruption head on? It is not a matter of how the present impasse will resolve, it is a much greater battle. There are no simple solutions.

To eradicate corruption demands a far deeper engagement and sustained commitment from each one of us. Witnessing the events of the last few days it would appear that the enactment of a single Bill will usher in a corruption-free society. I have serious doubts about this belief. An effective Lok Pal law is only one element in the legal framework to combat corruption.

The Lok Pal institution alone cannot be a substitute for a comprehensive anti-corruption code. A set of effective laws is required. Laws that address the following

critical issues are necessary to stand alongside the Lok Pal initiative:

government funding of elections and political parties,

transparency in public procurement,

proper regulation of sectors that fuel corruption like land and mining,

grievance redress mechanisms in public service delivery of old age pensions and ration cards; and continued tax reforms to end tax evasion.

We owe it to the people of this country to work together across party lines to ensure that Parliament functions at its optimum capacity and delivers these laws in a just and time bound manner. We speak of a statutory Lok Pal but our discussions cease at the point of its accountability to the people and the risk that it might itself become corrupt.

Madam Speaker, why not elevate the debate and fortify the Lok Pal by making it a Constitutional body accountable to Parliament like the Election Commission of India? I feel the time has come for us to seriously consider this idea.

Madam Speaker, laws and institutions are not enough. A representative, inclusive and accessible democracy is central to fighting corruption. Individuals have brought our country great gains. They have galvanized people in the cause of freedom and development. However, individual dictates, no matter how well intentioned, must not weaken the democratic process.

This process is often lengthy and lumbering. But it is so in order to be inclusive and fair. It provides a representative and transparent platform where ideas are translated into laws. A tactical incursion, divorced from the machinery of an elected Government that seeks to undo the checks and balances created to protect the supremacy of Parliament sets a dangerous precedent for a democracy.

Today the proposed law is against corruption. Tomorrow the target may be something less universally heralded. It may attack the plurality of our society and democracy.

India's biggest achievement is our democratic system. It is the life force of our nation. I believe we need more democracy within our political parties. I believe in Government funding of our political parties. I believe in empowering our youth; in opening the doors of our closed political system; in bringing fresh blood into politics and into this House. I believe in moving our democracy deeper and deeper into our villages and our cities.

I know my faith in our democracy, is shared by members of this House. I know that regardless of their political affiliation, many of my colleagues work tirelessly to realize the ideals upon which our nation was built. The pursuit of truth is the greatest of those ideals. It won us our freedom. It gave us our democracy. Let us commit ourselves to truth and probity in public life. We owe it to the people of India.

Rajiv Gandhi

Madam Speaker,

I have been deeply distressed at the developments of the last few days. Many aspects of the situation have caused me anguish. We are all aware that corruption is pervasive. It operates at every level. The poor may carry its greatest burden but it is an affliction that every Indian is desperate to be rid off. Fighting corruption is as integral to eliminating poverty as is Mahatma Gandhi NREGA or the Land Acquisition Bill. Yet it is equally imperative to the growth and development of our nation.

Madam Speaker, we cannot wish away corruption by the mere desire to see it removed from our lives. This requires a comprehensive framework of action and a concerted political program supported by all levels of the state from the highest to the lowest. Most importantly, it requires firm political will.

Madam Speaker, in the past few years I have travelled the length and breadth of our country. I have met scores of countrymen, rich and poor, old and young, privileged and disempowered who have expressed their disillusionment to me.

In the last few months, Annaji has helped the people to articulate this same sentiment. I thank him for that. I believe that the real question before us as representatives of the people of India today is whether we are prepared to take the battle against corruption head on? It is not a matter of how the present impasse will resolve, it is a much greater battle. There are no simple solutions.

To eradicate corruption demands a far deeper engagement and sustained commitment from each one of us. Witnessing the events of the last few days it would appear that the enactment of a single Bill will usher in a corruption-free society. I have serious doubts about this belief. An effective Lok Pal law is only one element in the legal framework to combat corruption.

The Lok Pal institution alone cannot be a substitute for a comprehensive anti-corruption code. A set of effective laws is required. Laws that address the following

critical issues are necessary to stand alongside the Lok Pal initiative:

• government funding of elections and political parties,
• transparency in public procurement,
• proper regulation of sectors that fuel corruption like land and mining,

• grievance redress mechanisms in public service delivery of old age pensions and ration cards; and continued tax reforms to end tax evasion.

We owe it to the people of this country to work together across party lines to ensure that Parliament functions at its optimum capacity and delivers these laws in a just and time bound manner. We speak of a statutory Lok Pal but our discussions cease at the point of its accountability to the people and the risk that it might itself become corrupt.

Madam Speaker, why not elevate the debate and fortify the Lok Pal by making it a Constitutional body accountable to Parliament like the Election Commission of India? I feel the time has come for us to seriously consider this idea.

Madam Speaker, laws and institutions are not enough. A representative, inclusive and accessible democracy is central to fighting corruption. Individuals have brought our country great gains. They have galvanized people in the cause of freedom and development. However, individual dictates, no matter how well intentioned, must not weaken the democratic process.

This process is often lengthy and lumbering. But it is so in order to be inclusive and fair. It provides a representative and transparent platform where ideas are translated into laws. A tactical incursion, divorced from the machinery of an elected Government that seeks to undo the checks and balances created to protect the supremacy of Parliament sets a dangerous precedent for a democracy.

Today the proposed law is against corruption. Tomorrow the target may be something less universally heralded. It may attack the plurality of our society and democracy.

India's biggest achievement is our democratic system. It is the life force of our nation. I believe we need more democracy within our political parties. I believe in Government funding of our political parties. I believe in empowering our youth; in opening the doors of our closed political system; in bringing fresh blood into politics and into this House. I believe in moving our democracy deeper and deeper into our villages and our cities.

I know my faith in our democracy, is shared by members of this House. I know that regardless of their political affiliation, many of my colleagues work tirelessly to realize the ideals upon which our nation was built. The pursuit of truth is the greatest of those ideals. It won us our freedom. It gave us our democracy. Let us commit ourselves to truth and probity in public life. We owe it to the people of India