Govt Explanation

The press conference by the Mr Chidambaram, Ms Soni and Kapil Sibbal appeared to be a belated attempt to engage in 'legalese'. Being eminent lawyers, they could glibly explain their way out of the current predicament; or say they thought. They may be legally right but the whole question is political. Why cannot the government forward the Anna version of the Bill also to the standing committee of the parliament? The main sticking point is that although there is agreement on 34 of the 40 points or principles, the six points rejected by the govt are the ones that totally dilute the provisions of the bill. Yes others may have an opinion but surely no one would like to bring a 'toothless' Lokpal Bill. Let the parliament reject or modify 'Team Anna' suggestions. What is wrong in bringing senior bureaucrats, ministers, the PM and even the judiciary under the Lokpal? Let it be debated in parliament and rejected through a democratic process. Why is the govt pre-empting the outcome? Do not forget; the people are fed up of corruption and also the namby-pamby ways in which successive govts have handled cases of corruptions. I would request the Home Minister and Shri Sibbal to give the people of India just one simple answer. They know that most (not all) MPs and MLAs declare their assets before contesting an election. We have noticed and the govt can check this that in most cases when we compare the figures over five/ten years, there is a huge increase in their assets in just five years. What is this magic formula by which an MP or an MLA leave aside ministers make so much money when he/she is supposedly busy serving the people of the country? Will the PM like to try answering that? Will you share this magic formula with the Aam Adami? Why when the US and many other European governments have managed to get all details of moneys stashed in Swiss banks, it is only the Indian govt that finds it so difficult and gives lame excuses such as absence of bilateral treaties? I think the govt and many other well informed people have completely under-estimated the extent and scope of people's anger on this issue. If they do not find some effective ways to address people's grievances, our society could face very serious difficulties and our democratic system might come under threat.