REWIND
New Delhi, 25 April
2024
A NEW WAY TO COMBAT
CORRUPTION
By Inder Jit
(Released on 10
October 1989)
Corruption continues to grow --- and the corrupt continue to
flourish and prosper. Each succeeding day spotlights some new scandal. Corruption
is thus poised to become one of the major issues in the forthcoming poll
battle, if not the principal issue. Not a few people in New Delhi disagree.
They argue: “Most of our voters in the villages have not heard of Bofors,
contrary to claims. In any case, few see anything wrong in the present day
Rajas making money. Who else would? But those who have their ears to the ground
are equally clear. The common man, they assert, is greatly agitated over mounting
corruption, which has seeped down to the grassroots and is now pushing up
prices. In fact, this point was boldly made at a recent meeting of the
Congress-I Working Committee by a top State leader whose warning in regard to
the 1977 poll proved prophetic. He told Mr. Rajiv Gandhi: “Bhrashtachar will be the main issue. We must have our answers.”
This raises a question which all of us and, more especially, those
who swore loudly by Mahatma Gandhi last week need to ask: How would Bapu have
reacted to the present state of corruption in the country and, equally
importantly, to the present five-star life style and culture of the ruling
classes? How would the Mahatma have tackled the problem of corruption? Alas,
the thought does not seem to have occurred at all to those who made it a point
to be seen at Raj Ghat (courtesy Doordarshan) or to speak at one meeting or
another in Gandhian accents and idiom. Equally distressingly, few have come to
give attention to another cancerous growth in India’s body politic: increasing
criminalisation of public life. This raises one other question. What would Bapu
have done to stop known criminals and convicts from taking India towards
Pindari raj and destroying everything that the Father of the Nation and his
chosen instrument, Nehru, espoused and stood for?
The Mahatma was fully conscious of the pitfalls ahead. Indeed, he
not only advocated simple living for the Ministers and a salary of Rs 500/-
p.m. but virtually outlined a code of conduct for them in his writings from
1937 to 1948. He wanted the Ministers to be watchful both of their personal and
public conduct and said that “they have to be, like Ceaser’s wife, above
suspicion in everything.” Offices must be held in the Government “with the
spirit of service” without the slightest expectation of private gain for
themselves or for their relations or friends. “There is beauty and an art in
simplicity,” he said and added: “It does not require money to be neat, clean
and dignified. Pomp and pageantry are often synonymous with vulgarity.” He
wanted Ministership to be viewed as a crown of thorns, not one of jewels.
Tragically, the Mahatma was snatched away before he could get free India’s new
rulers to accept and practise his ideas.
Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri favoured a comprehensive code of democratic
functioning and set up the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption,
which submitted its report on March 31, 1964. In pursuance of this report, the
Shastri Government announced in October 1964 a code for Central and State
Ministers. This provided, inter alia, for furnishing to the Prime
Minister/Chief Minister at the initial appointment and subsequently every year
by a minister a declaration showing the details of the assets and liabilities
and business interests of the minister and dependent relations of his family
(wife or husband, minor children and dependent relations.) The details to be
disclosed were to consist of particulars of all immovable property and the
total approximate value of (a) shares and debentures (b) cash holding and (c)
jewellery. But this has been implemented more in its breach. Few Ministers have
cared to file any such return over the past decade.
The situation could have been transformed dramatically if Mr Rajiv
Gandhi had accepted a suggestion made to him early in 1985 requiring himself and
his Ministerial colleagues at the Centre and the Chief Minister and his team in
the States as also all MPs and MLAs to declare their movable and immovable
assets to Parliament and the State Assemblies respectively at the outset and
annually thereafter. Benami assets
were almost certain to be a problem. But this could be largely tackled by
requiring the Ministers also to declare the assets of their sons, daughters,
sons-in-law and other members of the family. True, Ministers at the Centre and
in various States are already required to furnish a list of their assets to the
Prime Minister or the Chief Minister respectively in accordance with the
aforementioned code. But this has at best served the personal interest of the
leader by enhancing his capacity to control and manipulate his colleagues and
not the interest of the party or the nation.
Japan has succeeded where we in India have failed. It has
eloquently and admirably shown the way of firmly tackling the ogre of public
corruption. Two Prime Ministers have already had to quit -- Mr Tanaka in the
shocking Lockheed affair and Mr Takeshita in the Recruit scandal. All this has
been made possible by a firm commitment to certain minimum norms of public
morality. At the same time, meaningful steps have been taken to ensure clean
public life. Not many in India are aware that Japan gave itself in 1984 a new
practice whereunder Cabinet and other Ministers in the Government are required
to make public their assets in the form of land, houses, deposits, stocks and so
on shortly after they take office. Since June this year, the Ministers are also
required to declare the assets owned by their family members. Further, they are
now required to disclose the amount of cash and other tangible assets held by
them when they leave office!
Importantly, the declaration of assets by the Ministers in Japan is
given wide publicity through a Government report. Some of the information made
available by Kyodo news agency last week deserves to be shared with the reader.
The Prime Minister, Mr Kaifu, and his wife hold assets worth 107 million yen
(Rs 1.78 crores), placing him eighth among 21 Cabinet Ministers. (Mr Kaifu's
house in Tokyo is now worth approximately 730 million yen, according to real
estate sources. The Foreign Minister, Mr Nakayama, is the wealthiest member of
Mr Kaifu's Cabinet. He and his family owned assets of over 666 million yen (Rs
7.16 crores) when he assumed the position on August 10 last. (The value of real
estate and stock shares is calculated on the basis of official real estate
register and face value of shares, which are substantially lower than the
market prices.) The number of Ministers who reported more than 100 million yen
in assets was eight, down from 12 in Uno’s Cabinet.
Can something be done at this stage? The answer is still a loud yes.
Public opinion should require every candidate to declare his assets in a sworn
affidavit and thereby come clean before the voters. Those failing to do so
should be openly spurned and rejected. Some unscrupulous candidates might feel
tempted to mislead. But this problem could be tackled by requiring every
successful candidate to lay his affidavit on the table of the Lok Sabha. Public
opinion could, in addition, require all the political parties to spell out
their commitment to combating corruption. As proof of their bona fides, they
should not only get their candidates to declare their assets but also to
include in their respective poll manifestos a specific commitment to make three
things obligatory for their Ministers: (i) declaration of assets on taking
office; (ii) declaration to include assets owned by family members and (iii)
declaration of cash and other assets at the time of leaving office.
Likewise, there is urgent need to get all the registered political
parties to make certain specific commitments to prevent what is described as “criminalisation
of politics.” All persons guilty of crimes and convicted so must be refused
tickets. Equally, tickets should also be refused to those under a cloud in the
public life for alleged crimes or otherwise. (Experience in Britain shows it is
not always easy to get known criminals or corrupt publicmen convicted.)
Provision should also be made for a candidate to secure more than half the
votes polled to get elected. There should be provision too for a negative vote
entitling a voter to cast his ballot against all the candidates listed. All in
all, steps need to be taken in the next few weeks to combat both corruption and
criminalisation of politics. Time is running out. Double talk and deception
have been allowed to go on for too long. INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|