Eyes wide shut

THE former Supreme Court judge probing the Tehelka disclosures may, at best, end up naming the guilty. But that will not serve the real purpose. What has been exposed is the alarming extent to which corruption has corroded the system. It is not one set of people, one set of politicians or one set of activists that is to blame. It is society, which has stopped differentiating right from wrong and moral from immoral.

Corruption does not raise eyebrows any more. The dishonest are not shunned, as was the case for many years after Independence. Their parties are now the toast of the town, with top bureaucrats attending and newspapers publishing photographs of the invitees in a bid to promote circulation.

The rot runs so deep that the limited investigation is not even sufficient to scratch the surface. If the nation is to preserve the fundamental values of a clean society, every person — be it a public functionary or a private citizen — must display a degree of vigilance and willingness to sacrifice. Some dramatic moves are necessary.

In the late fifties and early sixties, when the country was tormented by regional chauvinism, Jawaharlal Nehru convened a National Integration Conference to discuss how to bring about emotional unity. The conference was divided into many committees, which submitted their reports on the line of action to be taken.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee should have torn a leaf out of Nehru’s book and initiated steps to hold a similar conference to discuss the various facets of corruption which are now part and parcel of our present-day administration and politics. Key leaders, top academicians, retired bureaucrats and others should be invited, as was done by Nehru. The nation’s eyes were then fixed on disunity, some 40 years ago. The point of focus now should be corruption and the steps needed to cleanse the system.

What has happened, in fact, is the politicisation of the Tehelka allegations. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) sees the move as part of an effort to dislodge it from power. The Opposition, particularly the Congress, feels it is a godsend, an opportunity to pull down the NDA, without having the necessary numbers in the Lok Sabha. Both sides have failed to fathom the disillusionment among the people. Both are missing the real point. Political parties can still meet to discuss joint measures to weed out corruption from public life. The manner in which they have faced the problem indicates that they are not serious about corrective steps.

Not long ago, the Vohra Committee report pointed to the nexus between politicians and the underworld. Some politicians were mentioned in the report. The then government not only held back the names but also some of the contents of the report. Of course, the committee’s conclusions were never pursued. The entire effort by the Intelligence Bureau, the CBI and RAW, spread over several months, was forgotten like a bad dream. The Tehelka expose may go the same way, except that Parliament may have a discussion on it after April 16 when the two Houses meet after the recess.
One, however, wonders to what extent Parliament is willing to go to combat corruption. What has emerged from the parliamentary select committee on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Bill does not inspire optimism. Instead of giving more powers to the CVC, the committee has made it toothless. The CVC cannot even oversee the investigation or disposal of cases, which it has itself entrusted to the CBI.

An independent review committee of secretaries to the Government of India had recommended that the superintendence of the CBI should vest with the CVC. It was a fair suggestion, given how politicised the CBI has become over the years. It is still a wing of the Department of Personnel in the Home Ministry. The parliamentary committee did not even discuss how the CBI could be rendered independent of political pressures, much less create an independent agency which could work for the CVC and the machinery set up after the Lok Pal Bill.

It is significant that the committee has restored the single director, which the Supreme Court had struck down in the hawala case. What it means is that the government’s prior permission will be required before moving against persons of the rank of joint secretary or above. That the Vajpayee cabinet has gone back to the old system even after the Tehelka episode is really unfortunate. The government may once again shield delinquent and pliable officials. Public servants who carry out the errands of political masters may go scot-free since the Central government will not give permission to prosecute them. There is already some sort of quid pro quo between dishonest politicians and corrupt government employees. They reportedly make money on transactions and share it with their political bosses who keep their eyes shut. Already, the ethical consideration inherent in public behaviour has become dim and, in many cases, is beyond the mental grasp of public functionaries. The government’s prior permission to move against senior officials will only aggravate the situation.

It’s not as if most MPs are taking any stringent measures against corruption. They are supposed to submit annually the details of assets owned by them and their spouses. Only a handful do so. Political parties should consider publishing details of the assets of their members in their official journals. While talking about corruption, it goes without saying that if the electoral system is purged of illegal money, clean elections are possible. Many committees have met in the past to suggest ways and means to do so. One such committee, which Jayaprakash Narayan headed, made useful proposals.

Finally, let me say a word on journalistic ethics. Tehelka did a wonderful job. But a few lapses, like an apology by one of its correspondents, raised some doubts on other aspects. A journalist should do such a thorough job that no one can pick holes. Otherwise, the entire story would lose its credibility. We have the Press Council to bring to light the mistakes the print media makes. Readers have come to look to the body as the custodian of their right to have a free, fearless and purposeful newspaper.

With the advent of TV and dotcoms, the Press Council needs to be restructured. The print media does not have the kind of impact — as was seen from the Tehelka tapes — TV networks do. The Press Council should be converted into a Media Council so that it embraces different aspects of information. The Media Council, too, should draw members from the different media engaged in collecting and purveying information. Their own peers will judge them — their acts of omission and commission.

Earlier Columns