The man in the hot seat, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, Vinod Rai, says he’s never faced political pressure on any audit. On the 2G scam, he says his report clearly says the “amount of loss can be debated”. And it was the petroleum ministry which asked the CAG to audit RIL and other exploration projects. Outlook’s Lola Nayar spoke to the CAG. Excerpts:
How are you handling all the criticism coming your way?
You are the first person who is suggesting that I have been facing criticism when the whole world thinks I am criticising them. Everybody asks me: “Why are you criticising so and so” and “Who are you going to slam next”?
Several political and corporate figures have questioned the CAG’s competence after damaging reports on the Commonwealth Games, 2G scam and now the charge of gold-plating by oil and gas exploration companies.
We conduct three kinds of audits. The first is Financial Audit. The second is Compliance Audit, to see whether expenditures comply with what was budgeted. The third is Performance Audit. In a letter issued in June 2006, the finance ministry clearly states that a performance audit is totally within the scope of the CAG’s audit and that he should have unfettered access to records. Now, whether it is 2G spectrum allocation or profit-sharing in petroleum, these are deemed performance audits because public goods have been made available for a private partner to exploit.
Kapil Sibal trashed your 2G scam report, did it dent your credibility?
The minister totally endorsed my report. He said he agrees with the CAG on two counts and disagrees on one. He agreed that rules and regulations had not been followed and set up a one-man commission to investigate. He also agreed that irregularities were committed to favour a party. The CBI is conducting inquiries on this. What does he disagree with? It is on the computation of the loss. My report also says: “...The fact that there has been loss to the national exchequer in the allocation of 2G spectrum cannot be denied. What can be debated is the amount of loss”.
Do your officials ever come under political and bureaucratic pressure?
Absolutely none, it is really remarkable the way we are left alone to do our work.
About your recent reports on 2G spectrum allocation and exploration activities, you have been criticised for leaking your reports.
What would we gain by leaking our reports? We would be stealing our own thunder. If it goes to Parliament, it will be laid before the House. And in the evening, the deputy CAG would hold a press briefing and explain the report. We would like for it to come out as a splash. Why would we want it leaked in bits and pieces?
Does the CAG have the necessary competence to audit the multitude of government departments, particularly with the government now looking at you to audit PPP projects?
At any point of time, an audit requires a certain element of expertise. Be it on defence, atomic energy, health or education—each field requires expertise. That is why we conduct an entry conference. When we do this, we expect you to explain the nuances of whatever your area of expertise is. Our strength today is the human capital we possess. Today, we are recognised among the top three or four auditors in the world.
In the case of exploration audits, the CAG’s expertise and understanding of various issues has been questioned.
I have 14 officers working in West Asia, helping the SAI (Supreme Audit Institution) audit their own exploration activities. The officer who did this (auditing the exploration activities in the three blocks, including KG-D6) has worked in the Gulf for at least four years. Let anybody come face-to-face with our officers and we’ll show them the extent of our understanding.
How satisfactory is the action taken, based on CAG reports?
There was an era wherein the CAG reports were not taken seriously. I remember commenting over here, when the PM was present, that one-third of our reports go unanswered. But I must also accept that, of late, the government has become very proactive. I am very enthused by the fact that the defence ministry in their procurement, and the environment ministry in their assessments, have both come out with revised guidelines.
Law minister Veerappa Moily criticised CAG’s inability to forewarn the government on various lapses. Will the proposed amendments to the Audit Act help you address this?
We have only asked for three major things. One basic criticism against us was that our reports come out very late. But exactly why were they late? If I went for an audit and asked for comments, you could give it to me in a day, in a month, in six months, or never give it and I could not do anything about it except remind you. Today, the government has empowered citizens with the RTI Act. We are asking for similar powers so that my audit queries are answered in 30 days.
How many CAG reports have not been laid in Parliament?
They have all been laid, but with delays—some after more than a year—because their timings were deemed inconvenient to governments from time to time. This happens more in the states than at the Centre. Two reports, one on Maharashtra and one on the Delhi Metro, took more than a year to be laid.
What is the track record of your reports being taken to their logical conclusion?
Six to 10 years ago, it wasn’t very good. First, because there were substantial time delays, the public did not take enough interest in the issue or it had remedied itself. Second, the accountability was just not there. So you just dumped it. But today, if it is more in real time, then accountability gets established.
We heard you are a gardening enthusiast: Is it your wife’s passion or yours?
No, no. I am the mali. Our roles are clearly defined, she’s the one in charge inside the house and I am outside it. I can’t mess about inside the house, she can’t do so outside. As long as I produce some sabzi and give it to her. Organic sabzi.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Everyone has enemies, or others, that he would like to see covered. Creating a wave of media, so you can pull someone is difficult, and only those with resources can do. But the CAG report can be easily done. But then, after deduction of other media confusion, someone had to stand because of the CAG report only?
Everyone has some enemy or the other that he would like to see fall. Creating a media frenzy so that you can pull someone down is tough; and only the ones with resources can do it.
But a CAG report can do it easier. But then, minus the subsequent media uproar, has anyone ever had to go out because of a CAG report alone?
a truly commendable work by the CAG and his team, inspite of extreme man power and money constraints.. we need more people like him at the helm of affairs to keep India free from corruption...
RV Subramaniam >> Its only a question of strengthening our existing systems to ensure persons of integrity are in charge of key functional areas such as CAG, CVC, CBI
THere is no possibility of strengthening existing systems, so long as these agences (CAG, CVC, CBI) remain under the control of ruling party and ruling government.
CAG, CVC, CBI should be put at par with Judiciary/Election Commission in that they must be freed from the control of ruling politicians of the day. So long as this doesnt happen, we will still need a LokPal .
With persons of impeccable inegrity operating top posts such as CAG, creation of an all powerful Big Brother Lok Pal loses its relevance.
Its only a question of strengthening our existing systems to ensure persons of integrity are in charge of key functional areas such as CAG, CVC, CBI and other watchdog and investigation wings of the Government.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT