'A Legitimate Aspiration Of The People'

Excerpts from the leader of the opposition’s speech in Rajya Sabha in the short duration discussion on growing incidence of corruption in the country

The issue of corruption which we are going to discuss today has always been an important issue as far as our society is concerned. But in the last few months, particularly in the last few days, it has acquired a centre stage as far as the social and political agenda of India is concerned. The reason for this immediately may appear to be the movement which has been launched by Shri Anna Hazare and his colleagues, the fast that he has undertaken. All of us are anxiously waiting for a moment when some very honourable settlement is arrived at; the Government comes out with a well intentioned statement that it shall take adequate steps even in terms of legislation so that corruption can be checked effectively in this country and Shri Anna Hazare is then persuaded to give up his fast because his life and his activities are extremely precious to this country.

But while we are at this delicate situation, and we are discussing the issue of corruption in this House, I do believe that this opportunity also presents a historic challenge to us. Parliament is the ultimate law making authority on this issue as far as India is concerned. Movements, outside Parliament, are all intended to convey public opinion and the intensity of that public opinion to us. That message, which is coming to all of us from different parts of the country today, could not be louder and clearer.

And the loud and clear message today is that the country is expecting Parliament to perform its historic obligation and duty, its commitment to the people, and take effective steps so that we are able to, substantially, tackle the problem of corruption, if not eliminate it altogether in India. While we do so, we must also have the honesty of purpose to really analyse where we have gone wrong. When I say, where we have gone wrong, I don’t want to sound partisan. Where is the activity, both political and economic, as far as this country is concerned and which are the challenges which are presented before us? Today there is a serious crisis of credibility. There is erosion as far as credibility of governance in some places is concerned. People are losing faith that the normal mechanisms, that we have put in place, will be adequate and sufficient to tackle the menace of corruption. Therefore, it is extremely important that we introspect honestly and introspect seriously. Our introspection must lead us to accept what truthfully the situation on the ground is. We should intend to restore the credibility of governance, raise the bar of accountability, and provide for deterrents so that those who indulge in these unacceptable activities, whether they are in the bureaucracy or they are in public life or they are in any other sphere of governance, do not get away after committing such heinous crimes against society.

I originally thought, when I was learning my initial lessons in politics, that there were too many controls and regulations which the Government had. And, we thought, when liberalization set in, and we had delicensing taking place, freedom from controls taking place, that the role of Government and the intrusion of Government into various places would come to an end, or, that it would, substantially, decline, and once that happened, we would probably have a much cleaner society as far as corruption was concerned. I must confess that this was the honest belief that even I shared. Of course, this had its own advantages. Delicensing, or, freedom from control, meant that people wanting to undertake economic activity did not have to move around in the corridors of power. To that extent, we did take a step forward.

But, as we progressed, when we unleashed larger avenues of economic activity, we, suddenly found that new areas and much bigger areas, as far as corruption and graft are concerned, suddenly started emerging. They got decentralised. And, I intend to place certain things before the House. I shall endeavour, at least, in that part of what I wish to say, to be as non-partisan as possible; but there are some observations that I have to make about the present Government a little later. Let us look at what has happened across the country. Today, if we look around, irrespective of which party governs which part of India, land, itself, has become one major area of corruption. For any economic activity, be it housing, be it industry, or be it institutional use, people need land.

Therefore, acquisition of land, which is the land intended to be acquired, which is the land intended to be released from acquisition, which is the land whose alignment with some highway or road must be changed so that a part of it comes near the highway itself and that increases the value of the land, conversion of land use, clearance of layout plans for townships and so on, all this, from top to bottom, is there. And we have now gone to the extent of saying that if you have an urban project which is more than fifty cores of rupees– and land being costly, most projects would be more than fifty crores of rupees – it will also require environmental clearance from the Central Government. At least, there was one stage, some years ago, not recently, where literally thousands of files used to be pending with the Central Government for environmental clearances because some buildings in some parts of the country have to be constructed. So, at different levels, with the kind of discretions we brought in, we suddenly found that all these activities became almost hand-maiden for various kinds of discretions and, since a large amount of money was involved in this, these became central areas for corruption.

Take mining. Let us look at the kind of system we have. Originally, we never thought that there would be an ability to make money if you go underground for mining or if you go underwater, into the sea, for oil and gas, or, even if you go into the space as far as Spectrum is concerned.

Now, as we have progressed, we have suddenly found that these areas, to those who have wicked intentions, provided a great opportunity.

In mining, except for a meagre amount of royalty and some taxes, the State gets almost next to nothing. And there is a transfer of natural wealth into private hands. And suddenly, we found a situation that not only is it a transfer of huge amount of wealth into private hands, but our policies and also – and I have said this in this House earlier – of 'first-come-first-serve', first application and so on were all intended to benefit not actual users but those who could trade in them. Some States now have altered that policy and want these to be given to those who would actually create jobs and value addition in those areas. There is a serious case for rethinking on the whole policy, on how much those people pay, how much is the revenue and so on – and I am told that an amendment in the mining law will also be proposed whereby some amount of money to be realised is to be spent for the development of the local region itself. But over the years that was the second area.

I refer to the third area now. And, these are all areas which we had not conceived of twenty years ago, including the airways. And what was Spectrum ultimately? It was a scarce resource. It was a limited resource and, therefore, by following a policy in which you say you want to give it to the actual user -- the actual user has deep pockets; he could afford to pay more -- but on some proposal or the other, we had a discretionary policy; we decided to under-price it and, therefore, by under-pricing it, we realised that there were people who were ready to make money out of them.

Take oil and gas. These were again areas where people went under water, under sea, and you found huge amounts of revenues. These are all national assets and who would get these national assets? Who are the people who will get them, whether it is Spectrum, whether it is these assets or it is mining or, for that matter, any other kind of largesse that the State gave? So, the State on behalf of the people was holding this largesse. Ports and highways are also in the same category.

So, in each contract, the terms can be so drafted that, while drafting the terms of the tender, you originally know who the successful party is going to be. These are all areas where we realised that we have started seriously compromising.

I must clarify, I am not an opponent of the whole idea of the society, the private sector, the non-Governmental organisations and charitable trusts getting into the field of education; from school education to higher education, some of them have made a commendable contribution. But, then, in areas where there was a scarcity created, in terms of seats--we know the States where this is happening--unthinkable amount of capitation fee for a single undergraduate or post-graduate medical seat was charged, because we decided to create scarcity of seats. Wherever the scarcity got over, the capitation fee disappeared. But, wherever we created scarcity, we found that this became a major area as far as black money is concerned.

Look at the area of liquor, the way tenders are given in some of the States, the way they are concentrated in limited hands. So, these are all areas where we found the extent of economic activity and its expansion. The average person found that it was beyond his reach. We left concentration of wealth in certain hands, who could then run and administer the whole thing.

Let us look at the plight of our Revenue Department, Customs, Excise, Taxes, Municipal Taxes, etc. Whoever has to go to these authorities, what we hear on television these days amongst the protesters, it is these grievances which has compelled them all to come out and say, “We, ultimately, found a voice and, therefore, we must speak out as far as these things are concerned.” Municipalities, rationing, licensing, transport departments of various Governments are all areas where we suddenly found that over the years it has become an accepted norm that corrupt practice would prevail and without a citizen going through that route it was very difficult to get his papers or file to move on or work to be done. This had an impact as far as the Government is concerned.

Let us also look at what happened to other limbs of the State. Last week only we discussed the judicial institution in the case of a Resolution for removal of one of the hon’ble judges. I do not want to repeat that. But, the fact of the matter is, the lower judiciary owes its accountability to the higher judiciary; the higher you go, the accountability norms get weakened. Therefore, when they get weakened, this is one area where people can get away and, therefore, the accountability norms are not there. I said it last week, and I have no hesitation in repeating it today.

I have been a close observer of that institution for the last 34 years. What was unthinkable when I joined the Bar, I find a large number of rumours with the institution almost every time I happen to visit somebody who is actively concerned.

Take the case of media. There is a whole idea of giving the media the freedom from control, freedom from any State regulations. We are proud of an independent media to that effect. But, then, in the last few years, we started getting whispers and then a number of us had to face the reality. Take the case of the whole menace of paid news. The media has, in fact, a greater function to perform. The industry may only help in developing the economy but the media shapes the human mind. If the shaping of the human mind also gets polluted because you have to buy packages, then the reader is misled. The right to be informed, the right to knowledge, as far as the reader is concerned or the viewer is concerned, gets vitiated because of the media packages. Therefore, I think, we created specialized investigating agencies.

We created specialised investigative agencies hoping that whenever corruption takes place in any sphere of life, these agencies will then step in and will start cleansing up the system. One such agency which was created is the CBI. We had a problem why the CBI was created. The CBI was created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act because law and order in our Constitution is a State subject, but the Central Government has its establishments all over the country. Now, obviously, a State police cannot investigate what goes on in the Central Government. Therefore, the Central Government said, “I must have my own police to investigate cases of corruption.” With the consent of the State, it can also investigate cases what happens in the States. But the State has to consent because we have a federal polity. We suddenly found that the investigative agencies and the premier investigative agency that we created suddenly started functioning for collateral or political reasons. And I can give you umpteen cases. I do not want to get into these cases. Let me give you one or two illustrations. Our friends from both principal parties of Uttar Pradesh are here. How many times does the CBI change affidavits in the cases of their leaders? Depending on the intensity of their political opposition to the Government in power, the colour of the affidavit changes accordingly.

In Andhra Pradesh, I recollect that the former Chief Minister, unfortunately, no more in this world, when he had a battle going on with the leading media organisation of the State, you had investigative agencies unleashed against that media organisation. And, suddenly, when the hon. Chief Minister is no more and his family members have gone and formed a separate political party, you find the CBI being unleashed against his political party. So, the dead man is retrospectively added as an accused.

It is a serious and a sad reflection on the health of some of our institutions. And because the health of our institutions is this, let us then not blame people who have come on to the roads in the present environment and who are now saying, ‘please reform the system’, and they are all looking at us what are we going to do under these circumstances.

While I am on this, I will just make the last point and then go to the larger submissions which I have to make. Is it not factually true that even 64 years after Independence, despite various honest efforts made by Governments, and here I am not blaming only political parties, we have not been able to discover an honest method of political funding in the country? The world's largest democracy does not have transparent method of funding, and, therefore, discretion in the matters of contracts, land, mining, all these factors when they interplay with this, it erodes the credibility of politics in public life. I remember when we were in Government, the Congress Party had formed a committee headed by the then Leader of the Opposition and today the hon. Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, and he prepared a very good report on this subject on behalf of the Congress Party. The report was, 'start giving tax rebates'. So, whatever people donate, whether individual donates or firms donate, or companies donate to Parties, it is a legitimate expenditure. You start giving deductions so that people get some incentives to make political donations in cheques. I was then in the Government. Inspired by the Report that he prepared, we immediately brought an amendment, it went to a Standing Committee headed by Pranab Mukherjee and we amended the Companies Act, the Income Tax Act and that is the law for the last seven, eight or nine years. The Left Parties had opposed it then. I remember Left Parties opposed, but most of us accepted it. The people will now be incentivized to donate in cheques because political funding is a reality. Why should it not be transparent? All over the world, it is transparent; there is nothing hush-hush about it. We made some beginning but a small beginning. Therefore, we have to seriously consider that if people donate in the hope that the recipient of the donation comes tomorrow in power, then, obviously it will be in my interest to keep him in good humour in anticipation of his coming in power. So, we have not been able to invent that system. Therefore, that is why people are looking towards this House and also the Lok Sabha that how the Parliament is going to react to this particular challenge.

We must not be mistaken that there are countries all over the world where similar protests took place, and in those countries protests took place because there was no democracy and they never allowed a protest. They had been strangulated for decades, if not more. In India we are a free society, people express themselves. Therefore, it would be wrong to compare it, but it is a legitimate aspiration of the people which is now surfacing in the hope that those in decision-making will react to it and respond in accordance with the enormity of the problem.

Our track record has not been the best. I remember when the UPA-1 was formed, with one of the great enthusiasms in the Government, one of the issues we regularly raised was about people with criminal cases, how do you bring them into Government, the issue of tainted Ministers. You have cases, where people close to those in high places were involved, were collusively killed by the CBI. I am referring to the famous case of Bofors. A number of times they collusively killed. Did they do any credit to the reputation of our investigative agency? The Government had to face an embarrassment during the UPA-1 in the Oil Coupons case, the Volcker case, as they used to call it. Brick by brick all this was eroding the credibility of the Government. You had not one but two cases in India-- people may get out on technicalities-- where there is a general conviction in the country that Governments have won a parliamentary majority, a vote of confidence, through means which are highly questionable. Therefore, that is a challenge and question thrown up before the world's largest democracy.

The 2G scam was not a small scam. At what level were people involved in this decision making? The matter is in court. We have debated it repeatedly. I won’t refer to it. For three years if we don’t take action in 2G, we can rest assured that you may think that you have put a lid on it but you can’t put a lid on public anger. That’s the harsh reality. Two weeks ago, we discussed what happened in the Commonwealth Games. Whether it is the Auditor General or it is the media or other exposures which are coming out, one by one they keep telling us how various kinds of improprieties and foul plays have taken place.

Let us be assured on one fact. Ultimately, if there is fairness on the strength of which Indian democracy survives, it is not fairness in our functioning or political stands that we take. At the end of the day, public opinion in this country is extremely fierce and extremely fair. That is why during elections, Governments get voted in, Governments get voted out. Waves do take place in elections because of the sense of fairness on the people and it is because of this sense of fairness, the enormity of their protest is proportionate to the anger and that anger is proportionate to the extent of malpractices which have gone up. So, when people find scam after scam and then people realize, here is a Government headed by a man whom we trusted, and, trusted for a good reason because of a good track record, and we find the Government and the Prime Minister feeling completely helpless in checking this. Can we blame the people for executing their anger during the situation?

Let us look at the manner in which we handled this whole crisis. It is true that for the last 42 years the political system has been debating what should be the kind of Lokpal. When the first protest took place we should have had squarely a political approach, spoken to them that we need a Bill. We will get the entire political cross section together which will tell them how much is doable and possible and how much within the framework of our law and Constitution is not possible. First, you lead them up the garden path and, then, suddenly you decide to dump them. It creates a crisis of confidence in them. They don’t trust you anymore. According to me, when the Government decided to dump the activists of India Against Corruption, the Ministers came out with a ministerial draft. When the Ministers came out with their draft, the ministerial draft, if it had some semblance of reasonableness, which was politically marketable to the rest of the society, the people would think that Government has come out with honest Bill. Maybe it still does not meet our expectations but we can accept it. Let us try and make a good beginning. Even that day when the Ministers came out with a draft, we told them, in fact, I put it with my own name [On The Ministers' Draft Lok Pal Bill, July 4] that this is the suggestion on the Net, there are some things which are doable:

The power to appoint a Lokpal. There must be a systematic mechanism in the power to appoint a Lokpal. It must be reasonably free from Government. Don’t overload it with Government representatives so that it becomes a Sarkari Lokpal. Some element of Government representation will be there. You can have an Opposition representation. You can have some eminent citizens put in there through a mechanism so that the best in the society are Members of the Lokpal. But by a play of joints you always wanted Government to have 60 per cent, 70 per cent majority or a decisive say in the appointment of Lokpal. So, you almost lost the moral battle against corruption because you wanted a Lokpal where you could, in the first instance, somehow play around with the appointments, that this has come out immediately in the backdrop of the CVC’s appointment which could not take place.

When it was brought to your notice that the CVC should not be appointed because there was a taint of a pendency of a criminal case of a particular gentleman, you said, ‘No, we are appointing him.’ In that background you again load the appointing Committee with people overloaded with Government. You then came out with a suggestion.

Prime Minister. There is a debate whether the Prime Minister should be included or not included. “No, the Prime Minister would not be included. We will include him after he ceases to be Prime Minister.” But, then a logical question which the people are asking is: If, prima facie, Prime Minister, at a given point of time, is questionable and corrupt, should he be allowed to complete his term and made accountable only afterwards? The world's largest democracy must then suffer a corrupt Prime Minister! He must be checked then and there. He must not be allowed to be in office even for a single day if there is serious stigma on him.

But, you came out with this formulation. A more reasonable formulation -- I am not saying that this was the NDA's formulation; it was NDA Government's formulation -- was cleared by the Standing Committee which was headed by Shri Pranab Mukherjee. And that formulation was that the Prime Minister will be included. Some functions which impinge upon national security and public order would be outside its sphere. And any reasonable activist with whom I had spoken to in the civil society says, 'Well, that exclusion, in the interest of national security or intelligence activities where agencies report to the Prime Minister, is justifiable and you can keep them out. But, in the matters of commercial contracts or any other form of dubious conduct, Prime Minister, at a given point of time, should be included.'

Judiciary. I come to judiciary. What you are now willing to concede is what we have been saying right from the day one. Judiciary cannot be covered by this Lokpal. Judiciary should be covered by another alternative mechanism. We call it the National Judicial Commission. Some people want to strengthen the Judicial Accountability Bill. I don't know what shape it eventually takes.

Grievance Mechanism. Now, I find there is a difficulty in the grievance mechanism. There is a debate whether it should be in Lokpal or it should be in a separate Bill. The Government of Bihar has come out with this legislation. The Government of Madhya Pradesh has come out with this legislation. They are working out the mannerism of starting this mechanism. Mr. Mishra tells me that the Government of Uttar Pradesh also came out with such legislation. It is the Government service delivery system that you must address the grievances of the common man, either through having an alternative mechanism or you have the Lokpal covering it. It could be a matter of debate.

State Level Lokayuktas. Let somebody in the Government -- two very senior Ministers are sitting in the first row -- seriously examine it, make a case study and you will reach a conclusion why offices like Governors should be kept away from the appointment of Lokpal. You find efforts being made to appoint the Lokpal without involving an elected Government! We don't even want that situation to come. Mr. Krishna is here and Mr. Kamal Nath is here. Let them examine it, rather than any side comment on this. No State Government in this country will accept the Governor making an appointment by saying that elected Government is not to be involved. If that were to happen, then the Federal structure in India would seriously get affected. So, let us, honestly, introspect the facts on that basis.

Most of the other issues -- selection panel, etc. -- are doable.

Removal of the Lokpal. Now, you have put one provision in the Government's draft that if Lokpal -- he could be a former Judge or he could be an eminent person -- is to be removed, only the Government can initiate the process of removal. And, pending removal, only the Government can suspend him. So, there is an enquiry against your Minister by Lokpal, you find a member inconvenient so you put him under suspension. It should be either through an impeachment process or the Supreme Court removal process. It must be independent of the political executive. What is wrong in it? Is that an issue on which you enter into confrontation with the civil society activists. The suggestion made is eminently reasonable.

Others. One suggestion is to have a Bench to deal with corruption cases expeditiously in every court. All of us should immediately agree to this. Whistleblowers who complain to Lokpal must get protection. Now, these are not areas where there should, actually, be two views even between political parties. A whistleblower in any system must get a protection. One of the grievances they have is this. Please consider this, and there must be some internal audit in the Government as to how these provisions came in. If a man files a complaint to a Lokpal and the official is held guilty, he can be sentenced for a minimum of six months or a maximum of up to 10 years. So, the corrupt officer will get six months imprisonment. Now, if your complaint turns out to be false, the complainant goes in for a minimum of two years imprisonment and it can go up to 5 years. So, the punishment for filing a complaint which turns out to be incorrect is more than the punishment to be inflicted on the official held guilty. Do you seriously expect anybody in this House or outside the Civil Society to accept these kinds of provisions?

Therefore, these are areas where you can never legislate in haste. And, at least, never legislate in anger.

NGOs. There is one provision in this. You had some problem with some Civil Society activists whom you first tried to bring in for a dialogue and, then, broke up with them. So, the Minister’s draft which has been introduced has a provision that all non-Government organisations will be covered by Lokpal. They said, “If it receives Government funding, it should be covered by Lokpal.” Now, what is the effect? Somebody is running a school, somebody is running a temple, somebody is running a Gurdwara or somebody is running an orphanage. They don’t take Government funds. You make the Government intrusive. Now, this was only a teaser to them that Minister has decided to act and provide for a Bill that every NGO in this country will be now accountable to a Lokpal. You may not like those NGOs, I may not like some of them. But, you cannot have a provision like this where somebody has nothing to do with the Government. Then, why leave it to Lokpal? Then, say, ‘Lokpal will also investigate political parties.’

Therefore, the Government Bill requires a serious re-look even if there are areas where you or us agree or we don’t agree with some of their provisions. I think some of them can be made compatible that they must exist in accordance with the constitutional provisions. This Bill cannot have a provision which violates the Constitution. Therefore, all provisions whether in your draft or any other draft by any of the NGOs which is there, must be constitutionally compatible.

Now, rather than break the dialogue, then, don’t talk again at all, and resort to these tactics, you sit with an open mind. Democracy functions on some basic principles. That is what we said last week when the Prime Minister made a statement ['Who Really Runs This Country And Who Rules This Country?', Aug 17] The ultimate authority is with the Government to introduce the law. The authority is with the Parliament to approve the law. They have a right to protest and crusade. But, then, we must neither curtail their right to protest nor must we get so angry with them and say like children that we will not speak to you now. And, it is only when pressure becomes unbearable that we will start speaking to you. Most of these provisions are such that they are workable, or, at least, they can be brought within the dialogue domain and a solution can be worked out rather than create a situation in the society that it appears that there is a confrontation going on between the political system of this country and the Civil Society.

If our objectives are honourable and our objectives are common which is the case now, at least, seize the challenge and eradicate corruption in this country. If we sit with an open mind, I have not the least doubt that most of these issues can be resolved and it won’t take too much time for it to be resolved. And, ultimately, if on some issues, the resolution does not take place, the will of Parliament will prevail. And, Parliament, surely, has got the message loud and clear that we will be reasonable, our principal objective will be how to eradicate corruption rather than cover up corruption. If we sit with that mind, I am sure, we will respond to this challenge which the society is now posing before the Parliament itself. I am sure we will respond to this challenge adequately and rise to this opportunity which the society really has provided us in terms of a protest. We will use this as an opportunity.