We are very professional about being corrupt, but in combating it we are sentimental and unprofessional (“Corruption: Let’s be professional about it”, April 23). We use all our creativity to find fault when a genuine effort is made to stem the rot.
The most popular objection raised against the constitution of the drafting committee is that it is an extra-constitutional authority. None of those who raised that objection could refer to any provision in our Constitution that forbids such an attempt. The writer says, “We are a democratic and common-law country where law making is left to elected representatives.” Is it? Making the law involves a procedure. A Bill is to be introduced in the legislature. But there is no prescription saying the Bill shall be drafted by any particular agency or authority. The government is not so blind as to agree to form the committee if there is any provision in any law or Constitution objecting to it. But the law requires that the Bill must be introduced in the legislature by a member of the legislature. Thereafter, it is for the legislature to deal with it. They may amend it, reject it outright or pass it in the way they like. But they cannot refuse to consider it on the ground that it is drafted by a citizen of the country who is not elected for the purpose.
To say the committee is extra-constitutional means is patently wrong and is a reflection of a sentimental objection. We are accustomed to not taking responsibility for our democracy. That is why the situation has come to this pitiable state. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
J L Jawahar, Hyderabad
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard, Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201; letters@bsmail.in
