 |
| Mission impossible? The jury is still out on whether and how well Narendra Modi is able to stem the tide of corruption. Photo courtesy: PIB |
A
|
n Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, now retired, received a peculiar instruction from a minister when he returned to his state cadre after a deputation at the Centre. The minister wanted the official to substitute the income certificate submitted by a student, who wanted to appear for an entrance examination, with another one so that the boy could claim the benefit of a quota for backward minorities and easily secure admission in a medical college. “Only you and I would know,” the minister told the officer, reassuring the latter that their secret would be safe with him. The officer, who had by then earned a reputation for not being a doormat for the politician, refused; needless to say, he was promptly transferred out.
Even though many years may have passed since the incident, Alphons Kannanthanam vividly recalls a sense of affront that apparently the minister felt and how his transfer order was issued the very next day.
In an earlier avatar as the commissioner of the Delhi Development Authority, Alphons demolished more than 14,000 illegal structures that had been built by certain politicians and high-net-worth individuals, reclaiming in the process acres of prime property that were then valued at several thousands of crores of rupees. Then, as later, he was shunted out at the behest of certain politicians and their associates.
Incidentally, his relocation to Delhi in 1992 had come about in similar circumstances; he was transferred out of Kerala after he wrote a dissenting note in the infamous palmolein oil import scam that had rocked the state. Alphons has since taken to politics; he contested and won as an independent candidate from the Kanjirapally Assembly seat in Kerala. He joined the BJP in 2011.
Cut to 2012 and another IAS officer, Ashok Khemka, would be transferred out for the nth time for taking on the powers that be. His fault? He detected certain irregularities in land transactions, particularly one allegedly involving a high-profile politician’s son-in-law and a public limited company. Khemka has been unceremoniously transferred more number of times than the total number of years of service he has put in so far. Today, he serves as the transport commissioner of Haryana.
When reports began to appear in the media about the extent of this VIP’s involvement in the alleged scam and when a civil society movement called India Against Corruption began to pose uncomfortable questions to the erstwhile Manmohan Singh government and the Congress party alike, this VIP had derisively remarked, “mango people in a banana republic”; in Hindi, mango people means “aam aadmi”, an unmistakable reference to the anti-corruption movement, some of whose members subsequently floated the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
Some politicians and political parties have wondered why a “private citizen”, like the VIP in question, should be hounded in the manner he has been. But, as the TEHELKA investigation reveals, he hardly fits the description of a private person. For, how many private citizens can claim to curry favours from a corporate (Jet Airways, in this case), and with relative ease at that? Or, as a BJP leader wondered aloud, which private citizen would be exempted from security checks, greeted with a meet-and-assist service every time he flies or accorded security at taxpayers’ expense?
The downside of corruption
India may have copied the British model of governance, but the similarity ends there. In the United Kingdom, a certain minister had to resign for even as much as asking the person concerned to fast track the issue of a visa application of the nanny of his former lover. India, in contrast, seems to exhibit a far greater tolerance of misdemeanours. (However, one of the earliest recorded exceptions to this general trend was in 1951 when Jawaharlal Nehru made an example of HG Mudgal, who, incidentally, was also from the Congress party, for accepting a bribe.)
There is no gainsaying that the intersection of political, corporate and bureaucratic classes in India presents a combustible mix and their interplay has a direct bearing on governance.
In 1993, the government constituted a committee headed by the then home secretary NN Vohra (today he is serving as the governor of Jammu and Kashmir) to look into the nexus between crime syndicates, bureaucrats and politicians. Twelve years later, in 2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission was set up under the chairmanship of Veerappa Moily for revamping the administrative machinery. Certainly, the two reports leave a lot to be desired.
A conservative estimate by an industry chamber puts the financial cost of certain recent cases of corruption at 36,400 crore. Also, India has slid down Transparency International’s corruption perception index rating; from being ranked 72 in 2007, it dropped to 87 in 2010 and 94 in 2013, below some countries such as China.
In Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2013, politicians, corporates and bureaucrats in India had the dubious distinction of being perceived as more corrupt than others. More than 80 percent of the people surveyed felt that the political parties and their leaders were corrupt; 65 percent felt the same way about lawmakers and bureaucrats; and 50 percent said that businesses were guilty of indulging in corrupt practices.
Corruption dates back decades
While he headed the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, which, among other things, examined the politician-corporate-bureaucrat nexus, Moily had said that corruption has been with us for several centuries. Even at the time Kautilya wrote Arthashastra, he had said that just as fish moving inside water cannot be known when drinking water, even so officers appointed for carrying out works cannot be known when appropriating money. Modern India isn’t any better. A perusal of the history of independent India would suggest that it is replete with scams. The earliest recorded scandal dates back to 1948 when a foreign firm was contracted for supply of jeeps to the Indian Army. Although the firm received monies, it failed to deliver the promised number of vehicles.
Nehru was not personally accused of corruption, but the same could not be said of his government. As a sitting Congress mp from Thiruvananthapuram, Shashi Tharoor, writes in his book Nehru: The Invention of India, “Jawaharlal [could not] prevent the growth of the corruption which his own statist policies facilitated. The image of the self-sacrificing Congressmen in homespun gave way to that of the professional politicians the educated middle classes came to despise, sanctimonious windbags clad hypocritically in khadi who spouted socialist rhetoric while amassing uncountable (and unaccountable) riches by manipulating governmental favours. With licences for quotas for every business activity, petty politicians grew rich by profiting from the power to permit.
“The stench of corruption reached Jawaharlal’s own circles three times in the later years of his rule: When his finance minister TT Krishnamachari was obliged to resign in 1958 over improprieties in a life insurance scam (it was Feroze Gandhi’s muckraking that brought about Krishnamachari’s downfall); when his friend Jayanti Dharma Teja, whom Nehru had helped set up a major shipping line, defaulted on loans and skipped the country; and when Jawaharlal’s own private secretary since 1946, MO Mathai, who was accused both of spying for the CIA and of accumulating an ill-gotten fortune, was forced to resign in 1959. In none of these cases was there the slightest suggestion that Jawaharlal had profited personally in any way from the actions of his associates, but they again confirmed that Nehru’s loyalty exceeded his judgement.”
History was to repeat itself, again, during the tenure of the erstwhile upa government. A series of scams, including, but not limited to, the allocation of 2G spectrum and coal blocks and the hosting of the 2010 Commonwealth Games, eventually led to the downfall of the government that was headed by a prime minister with a Teflon image.
According to former Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Vinod Rai, if the then prime minister Manmohan Singh had wanted, he could have prevented the 2G scam. Also, recently, the Supreme Court told CBI director Ranjit Sinha to recuse himself from the 2G probe. According to TSR Subramaniam, a former cabinet secretary, that the CBI was a “hand maiden” of the government of the day was well-known but he thought it was extraordinary that no action has yet been taken against Sinha.
Will Modi make good his promise?
Candidate Narendra Modi raised the bar by saying that neither does he himself indulge in corruption nor would he allow others to do it (“na khaata hoon, na khaane doonga”.) At the same time, he qualified his remarks in an interview he gave to a private television channel by saying that the problem of corrupt practices could not be solved to everyone’s satisfaction, but that certain preventive measures could surely make it difficult to indulge in corruption. The jury is still out on whether and how well Prime Minister Modi is able to stem the tide of corruption, which, as he said in August at an election rally at Kaithal in Haryana, is a disease worse than cancer.
His government set the tone as early as June this year when it used President Pranab Mukherjee’s speech to a joint session of Parliament to underscore that the government “is determined to rid the country of the scourge of corruption and the menace of black money”. In the same speech, it was said that “the institution of Lokpal is important to curb corruption and my government will endeavour to formulate rules in conformity with the Act”. (The government hopes to push for the Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Bill, 2014, in the ongoing winter session of Parliament.)
Subramaniam insists that it is too early to judge the Modi government; he points out that Modi has made a beginning by making it known to anyone who would care to listen to him that he intends to bring about a visible difference in the way India is governed. Already, the message seems to have had the desired impact on corporates. Recently, The Economic Times quoted Godrej group chairman Adi Godrej as saying that “there is a definite realisation among Indian firms that even in government, there is a major movement underway against corruption”.
Hypocrisy to the fore
Yet, to the discerning, it is obvious that the debate about corruption in India smacks of hypocrisy and double standards. According to a recent Transparency International report, 54 percent of Indians surveyed say they paid a bribe in the past year; that is one in every two Indians who participated in the survey.
A 2013 document titled ‘Bribery and corruption: Ground reality in India’ prepared by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Ernst and Young, a multinational professional services firm headquartered in London, quotes an unnamed foreign multinational company as saying, “These days, bribery is in many cases regarded as a norm rather than an evil.”
Yet, even if, for a moment, one were to accept and concede that corruption is endemic and few can claim to be untouched by it, that an ordinary Indian citizen is as culpable or guilty as, say, a VIP, the latter will still find it difficult to wriggle out because public interest is involved; and, therefore, to that extent, politicians, corporates and bureaucrats would be held to a different yardstick than the common man.
Corporates don’t fare any better, either. The FICCI document explains that “more than half of the respondents agreed that it is the lack of will of corporate enterprises to obtain licences and approvals the ‘right way’ which encourages bribery and corruption”.
Furthermore, while cash continues to be the most preferred mode of paying bribes (89 percent of the respondents selected it from the long list of possible modes), 77 percent chose “gifts and kind” as a likely quid pro quo, which, possibly, explains the behaviour of some of the dramatis personae in the TEHELKA investigation.
This, when the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, stipulate that government officials are not to accept or permit members of their families (or other persons acting on their behalf) to accept gifts.
According to the FICCI document, the expression “gift” includes free transport, boarding, lodging or other services, or any other pecuniary advantage provided by any person other than a near relative or personal friend with no official dealings with the civil servant.
As the Second Administrative Reforms Commission said, “The standard should be one of not only the conduct of Caesar’s wife but of Caesar himself.” And that holds true for the political, corporate and bureaucratic classes today. And tomorrow, too.
