Why it is better if the Lokpal Bill doesn't become law

I don't quite agree with the demands of hunger-strikers in Delhi, first Anna Hazare and then Baba Ramdev, ostensibly seeking to end corruption in government. But I believe with all my heart that - as citizens of India - they had the right to protest peacefully.

Firstly, why I disagree with them...

You see, even if the Lokpal Bill is successfully passed by parliamentary, it becomes just another 'law'. And often laws are a useful stick the government uses against its own citizens!

Just like the one police used when they barged into the Ramdev protest venue last night... Apparently, Baba Ramdev had overlooked the law that said he needed "permission" for the gathering!

Perhaps, emboldened by the fact that the law was on their side, the 'law enforcers' went ahead and inflicted multiple spinal fractures on a woman yoga teacher... She is now a quadriplegic!

Shame on you, whoever ordered the assault on citizens' rights last night. (The police force in India lacks the backbone themselves to have done this on its own volition. They are mere instruments. Someone very high up in the corridors of power told them - nay, ordered them - to do this.)

We don't need more laws. We need more sensible people at the helm.

All 'laws' are open to interpretation. And unsurprisingly, laws have a way of meaning exactly what the ones with money and power want it to mean.

Corruption is a not about breaking a law. Usually, it is only about interpreting it differently.

Otherwise, why are naked examples of corruption on a gargantuan scale, like the sale of 2G Spectrum and S-Band Scam cloaked in legalese? Why are obvious cases of greed and misuse-of-office, which caused over a trillion rupees in losses to the nation referred for arbitration to a 'Court of Law'?

As a Republic, India is governed by laws. But when a law is made with a vested interest or out of naiveté, it is more dangerous than not having one.

The Lokpal Bill included.