Wallowing in the quagmire of scandals

You name a scam. We have it. There is no segment of life that we have not polluted. Defence deals, telecommunication contracts, fi-scal jugglery and, more recently, the allotment of petrol pumps – the list is endless.

Our politicians and government servants have perfected by now a system where nobody is accountable or held guilty. We have ceased to have sensitivity or shame because we have stopped looking at ourselves in the mirror.

In the hawala case, crores of rupees were given to political leaders. A diary was found where the exact amount of money was mentioned against their names. The nation was horrified. Recipients were themselves embarrassed.

The case went right up to the Supreme Court. The then Chief Justice threatened to reveal the identity of those who had tried to exert pressure on the court to drop the case. Still nothing happened in the end. Everything went on as before. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the trial court had already let off the leaders of the political parties. It wanted the diary entries to be corroborated.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took its own time to gather information and then dragged its feet while filing the charge sheets. It was not only frustrating but also unbelievable. Obviously, there was more to it than what met the eye.

But it is nothing new. It always happens that way. This is our experience. Somewhere along the line, the establishment takes over. It sees to it that no feather is ruffled. Too many high-ups are involved in too many scandals. Hushing up the matter is considered prudent.

In the hawala case, the Supreme Court ticked off the CBI for not taking "earlier action". It even said that, "either the investigation or the prosecution or both were lacking." Yet the rulers were not embarrassed. Nor ashamed either, though they were themselves involved in the scam.

However, one good thing came out of it. That was: the Supreme Court's proposal to establish a statutory vigilance commission. Many members of parliament did not like the court to encroach on the legislative territory. But what was the court supposed to do when parliament did not act?

A joint committee of the two houses was constituted to process the Supreme Court's proposal. I was a member of the committee which was elected to consider the Central Vigilance Bill.

In the final recommendation, members did not give the vigilance commission any real power – neither autonomy nor superintendence over the CBI. It suited the political parties to have it that way. The CBI as a department in the Home Ministry was preferable to supervision by the vigilance commission.

I submitted a dissenting note, the only one in the committee's report. My proposal was to have a separate, independent investigative agency, autonomous like the Election Commission, submitting its reports to parliament directly. I felt that the agency, with its own set-up, could serve the Lokpal (ombudsman) if and when appointed.

The suggestion remained a non-starter because the other 39 members of the committee, both from the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, did not support me.

My opposition was enough for Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Pramod Mahajan to see that I was not nominated to any other committee. Our group of independents – 16 members – recommended my name for the committee on the stock exchange scam.

The assignment was to find out the misuse of private savings invested in scrips like the Unit Trust of India (UTI). Mahajan said the group could nominate anyone else but me. My protest to the Prime Minister was of no avail.

My other point of dissent was against the committee's restoration of a "single directive", which meant the government's prior permission for inquiry against high-level bureaucrats. The Supreme Court had rejected the practice. But our committee went back to it.

The restoration of permission to the government is creating more havoc than before. Once again there is shielding of delinquent officers. They are pliable, birds of the same feather, which flock together. Public servants who carry out the errands of political masters go scot-free because the permission for their prosecution is never forthcoming.

Some sort of quid pro quo has come to be established. The officer concerned may be making money on the side and political bosses may be keeping their eyes shut because of the "services" he renders to them. Corrupt officers have come to rule the roost due to their proximity to the seats of power.

In fact, public servants have now ceased to be aware of what is right and what is wrong. Even if they are, they may not have the desire to act according to what is right. We have seen how the ethical considerations inherent in public behaviour became generally dim during the emergency (1975-77). Government servants became willing tools of tyranny. They followed the dictates of rulers and their extra-constitutional accomplishes. The nation went through hell.

The N.N. Vohra Committee has pointed out the existing nexus between politicians, civil servants and criminals – almost a parallel government. Corrupt deals, dishonest decision and wrong methods are the fallout. Why the report, more than five years old, has not been followed up is a question the nation should ask itself.

Against this background, the petrol pump allotment scandal is only a symptom, not the disease. The disease is political thuggery. Both politicians and bureaucrats have joined hands to benefit each other.

The Prime Minister has acted quickly. His cancellation of all petrol pump allotments since 2000 is commendable. But strangely enough, he has not agreed to the dismissal of Petroleum Minister Ram Naik. Parliament was not allowed to run for several days.

The Opposition demanded the resignation of Ram Naik but it was not accepted. And parliament has been adjourned sine die. Why hasn't Ram Naik been sacked? If nothing else, he is morally responsible.

Since the end of the Lal Bahadur Shastri era 36 years ago, India has been morally going down the hill. This is at the expense of the poor and the downtrodden. A decade ago, only 12 paise in a rupee for development reached the lower half. Now it is less than 10 paise. The main reason is that political parties are not interested in the process of cleansing.

An opportunity had come when the election commission, following the Supreme Court's directive, asked the candidates to disclose their assets and of their spouses and dependents at the time of filing their nomination papers.

All political parties are opposed to the order. They want legislation to amend the election commission's order. According to the bill, which will come up before the next session of parliament, a candidate needs to file a list of his or her assets and that of the spouse not before contesting but after getting elected.

Why should the voters be denied information about the candidates when they are in the field? In fact, the election commission's order that a candidate must reveal his background – whether he has ever been chargesheeted for any criminal activity or jailed for any crime – has also not been to th