Corruption in governance and public life appears to be overflowing. It has crossed the limits of tolerance. We created several institutions which were perceived to be safeguards against corruption. They are either helpless spectators or have been seriously comprised. New rules are therefore being laid down replacing old conventions on how corruption is to be exposed. This is what we have witnessed in the recent past.
In the Bofors bribery case, indisputably kick-backs were paid. The Swiss authorities informed the CBI that kick-backs were paid to a shell company whose beneficial interests were owned amongst others by a ‘politically connected’ person and yet a Joint Parliamentary Committee headed by the Congress leader, Mr. Shankaranand, which submitted a report that these were winding up charges and not kick-backs. The CBI’s approach in the case depended on the political colour of the government in power. Once the Congress led government was installed, the CBI decided to collude with the accused and provide to them a burial of the case.
Even a wishy washy charge-sheet in the ‘Cash for Votes’ case established that bribes were paid to win over the votes of Members of Parliament. The government and the Prime Minister survived the vote of confidence after the Indo-US Nuclear deal. Could any prime Minister survive in public life in the face of voluminous evidence that his majority was procured through bribery? Yet a parliamentary committee and the police investigation were both rigged to prevent the truth from surfacing.