An Adarsh lesson for babus: Don’t flirt with political bosses

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-straight-from-fantasia-bjp-s-bank-transactions-tax-1947973

There has been a noticeable silence from the bureaucracy over the decision of the Maharashtra government to go soft on the politicians indicted by the J. A. Patil commission on the Adarsh Housing society scam, even as proceedings against the officials allegedly involved continue.
Contrast this with the outraged reactions when retired coal secretary P. C. Parakh was named in the first information report (FIR) in the coal block allocations case. Or when young IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal was suspended for taking on the sand mining mafia in Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh. Serving and retired IAS officers demanded that safeguards be put in place to ensure that bureaucrats are not victimised for bona fide decisions and actions they take in the course of their work.
The contrast in responses is natural. Parakh and Nagpal were seen as honest officials being persecuted for legitimate decisions. The officers named in the Adarsh scam are seen as having benefited from illegal actions.
Important though this difference is, dare one suggest that the bureaucracy’s silence in the Adarsh case is a tad misplaced? The issue is not whether the officers are innocent or not; the issue is the patent double standards that the Maharashtra government has adopted.
The state government sees no duplicity. The politicians, chief minister Prithviraj Chavan quibbled, had merely extended political patronage and not indulged in any criminality. He is perhaps technically correct. After all it is the bureaucrats who initiate files, make notings and, in some cases, sign on decisions. Politicians merely indicate what they want done.
In Andhra Pradesh, eight IAS officers are facing criminal charges in cases of alleged corruption by former chief minister, the late Y. S. Rajashekhar Reddy. Some politicians are also in the dock, but the officers became more culpable because they had done the paperwork.
Look also at what happened when Parakh’s name figured in the coal block FIR. The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement which detailed the movement of the file related to the allotment of coal blocks to Hindalco. The statement said that the Prime Minister merely signed something Parakh had proposed. Worse, information and broadcasting minister Manish Tewari and external affairs minister Salman Khurshid said ministers could not be going through every word and notation on a file before signing it.
This has a clear message for the bureaucracy – when push comes to shove, politicians will stand by their own and disown official. This is not just an end to the days of anonymity of the bureaucracy – the unwritten code that existed in the fifties and sixties that ministers would take responsibility for decisions they had signed off on. It is an indication that politicians now expect bureaucrats to take the rap for everything, much like drivers have to own up to hit-and-run accidents committed by their rich employers.
Who is to blame for this state of affairs? Unpalatable as it may be, the truth is that the bureaucracy has brought upon itself a lot of the problems it is facing today. Indira Gandhi has rightly been blamed for politicising the bureaucracy, but could it have happened to the extent it has unless bureaucrats also played ball?
The onus of change, therefore, cannot be on politicians alone. Why would they initiate change in a system that works for them all the time? It is the bureaucrats who must now put the political establishment on notice – that they will no longer be willing accomplices or supine doormats.
But this will mean doing a lot of things differently.
It will mean not taking verbal orders, especially if they are illegal. There is a convention that verbal orders are recorded in a note without delay. The fact that the Supreme Court had to recently give an order insisting on this practice shows how rarely it was being followed.
It will mean using the various protections that service rules offer to resist pressure and do one’s job with integrity.
But above all, it will mean bureaucrats presenting a united front to the political establishment.  Many bureaucrats succumb to pressure because they cannot fight the system alone. They need to have the confidence that their colleagues and seniors will stand by them. This solidarity cannot be episodic but has to be sustained.
Harassment in the form of frequent or clearly vindictive transfers can be checked by the cabinet secretary at the Centre or the chief secretaries in the states. But often they do not pull their weight adequately. If the head of a service refuses to stand up for those under his charge, who will?
Political bosses find ways to get around stubbornly upright officers by using other pliable officers. A senior officer can use his position to browbeat a junior. And a willing-to-be-compromised junior can put the senior in a spot by drafting a note or manipulating a file in a particular manner. Ashok Khemka, the controversial Haryana cadre IAS officer, has accused two other officers of conspiring with the state government to harass him because he tried to block some allegedly dubious land deals of Robert Vadra. One of the two officials, he has alleged, had a role in approving these land deals. Clearly, for every upright officer, there are several others who not only facilitate wrongdoing but also the harassment of conscientious and principled colleagues.
The Adarsh case should be a wake up call for all those bureaucrats who either willingly collude with the political establishment for rewards ranging from comfortable/lucrative postings to material gain or silently acquiesce in wrongdoing.  At the first sign of trouble, the politicians will abandon them and leave them holding the can. And then their colleagues are not likely to rally around them.
There are two lessons for the bureaucracy. One, don’t get into too a cosy relationship with the political bosses; stay within the boundaries set by the Constitution.  Two, stand by your own, especially when upright colleagues are being harassed or facing pressure.  But the second will not be possible without the first. No Supreme Court order or administrative reform measures will work if bureaucrats willingly break ranks to flirt with their political bosses.

Beyond voting: Why we can’t outsource change to netas

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/beyond-voting-why-we-cant-outsource-change-to-netas-1270437.html

What a sad reflection on the Delhi voter that a 67 percent turnout in an assembly election is being hailed as record-breaking and historic. The missing names in the voters’ lists and other glitches that prevented people from voting would not have made more than a difference of a few percentage points. It is the lowest voter turnout in the country (as it has always been) from a place where whining by the people is perhaps the highest.
Those lower down in the class hierarchy – the lower middle class and the poor – have always made up the bulk of the voters in Delhi. It is the relatively better-off and the well-heeled who preferred to grumble about The System in the comfort of their homes instead of actually getting out and doing something about it, even if it is just to take a couple of hours off on a holiday to stand in a queue and vote. They didn’t need to, because they could manage The System, regardless of who was in power. Maybe this section also came out to vote this year.
Various explanations are being offered for this year’s high turnout – the galvanising chutzpah of the Aam Aadmi Party, the Narendra Modi appeal and the dissatisfaction with the Sheila Dikshit government – but one will have to wait for the results to see which of these proved decisive. But it isn’t about this year alone. Depressing as the voter turnout scenario is, one must perhaps take grudging cheer from the fact that it has been increasing over the years. Something is obviously changing.
But does this indicate a more active engagement with politics and democracy, as almost the entire commentary on this year’s phenomenon seems to suggest? Voting during elections is seen as sufficient for doing one’s duty by democracy. Once that is done, everyone retreats into their apathetic, insular worlds for another five years. That is where the problem lies.
Engagement with democracy cannot be merely a quinquennial affair involving pressing a button on a voting machine. It involves being in a constant state of alert and speaking out – on everything from overflowing drains to corruption in high places. It is about keeping the pressure on elected representatives through the five years and not just at the end of that period.
It is also about the way we engage with our immediate environs, taking responsibility for our actions or non-actions, as the case may be. There is little point in knowingly flouting the law and bribing officials to, say, build an unsafe structure and then blame only politicians and officials when disaster strikes.
There is little point in turning away when a woman is being harassed or not accompanying someone who has been to a police station and following up a complaint and then blaming the government for lack of women’s safety.
Harassment bribes can be fought; there are mechanisms for that. It requires putting up with some inconvenience. That’s not easy to do for a middle class that is sapped of all energy by the daily grind of living life in Delhi. But are we doing even the little bit that is possible?
There is little point in demanding the right to recall or that elected representatives be held accountable to us when we are not even willing to hold office-bearers of our resident welfare associations (RWAs) – who are far more accessible, since they are our neighbours – accountable. One can’t go lower than the RWA as far as building blocks of democracy are concerned. But attendance at general body meetings held once in three months (sometimes even less) to discuss the colony’s problems and how the RWA’s budget is to be spent is rarely more than 30 percent, across Delhi. As a result, most RWAs are dominated by a few groups, which run amok whenever they are in power, just like political parties and politicians do.
Given this attitude, what is the guarantee that people will actively participate in the mohalla samitis that the Aam Aadmi Party has promised to set up? The proposal involves dividing assembly constituencies into zones (based broadly on municipal wards) and holding regular town hall kind of meetings which all residents of that zone can attend and discuss how the budget for that zone should be spent. It could, as supporters claim, deepen democracy by involving people more closely in the governance process, something they are excluded from currently. Or it could lead to anarchy, as critics insist. But given the high levels of public indifference, will either of these assertions even get a chance of being tested?
Change is not something that can be outsourced to a Narendra Modi or an Arvind Kejriwal or whoever else represents change at a particular point in time. They can come up with solutions for the macro issues, but it is the people who have to ensure that those solutions make a difference at the micro level. The leaders and political parties can bring in steps to bring corrupt officials in line, but they can’t come to your locality to supervise how roads are being built or see if officials are harassing someone for a bribe.
The change that they represent and perhaps facilitate will come only when individuals shake off their ennui and put the systems they may set up to good use. When we refuse to pay a bribe even if it means harassment. When we follow up repeatedly on a faulty public works project. Are we ready for that? Or will we go about our lives as usual and then, at the end of five years, blame Modi or Kejriwal for failure to bring change and then look for some other messiah?
The record voter turnout in Delhi is a cause for celebration only if it is a tentative first step towards a more active citizenship and a more sustained engagement with governance systems, inconvenient as they may be. Only that will lead to sustainable change, set the foundation for an entirely different kind of politics lead to a deepening of democracy.

Why Kejriwal’s AAP is looking like old wine in new bottle

First published in Firstpost.com: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/why-kejriwals-aap-is-looking-like-old-wine-in-new-bottle-1122347.html

So, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is all set to make an impressive debut in electoral politics, if the latest opinion polls are to be believed. We’ll have to wait till November-end to know. 

If the polls are correct, Arvind Kejriwal and his team will deserve kudos. Delhi has always been the fiefdom of the Congress and the BJP (and its earlier avatar, the Jana Sangh) and both need to be given a good jolt. But what after that? That’s a question the AAP cannot ignore.

Ever since the AAP came into existence a year ago, Arvind Kejriwal has been promising that the party will usher in a new kind of politics. That has also been the running theme in all interactions that party leaders have had with the public. They have been fanning across the city since August, meeting small groups of people in public spaces. In all of them, brandishing the broom – the party’s symbol which they say they asked for – the leaders vow to sweep out all that is bad in Indian politics and bring in what they insist will be an entirely new kind of politics, no matter how long it takes and regardless of how the party fares in elections.
Unfortunately, that is exactly where the AAP promise flounders. There is little evidence till now that the `new’ political style and culture that AAP promises is anything more than the way the party is managed and the behaviour of its elected representatives. So, the party has a transparent and democratic organisational structure; only candidates with a clean reputation are chosen in a very transparent manner; elected representatives will not use red beacons on their vehicles or live in sprawling government bungalows and be surrounded by a phalanx of security personnel. The kerfuffle over a key member, sociologist Yogendra Yadav, being sacked from the University Grants Commission (UGC) is at variance with these lofty ideals, but more on that later. 

A new political culture cannot just be about the way a party is organised or functions. Nor can it be limited to symbolic gestures like shunning red beacons. It also has to be about the way a party engages with the voters. (Actually, AAP is not the only non-traditional party to have a strong ethics code in place. Several new do-gooder parties that emerged on the political landscape after 2007 are doing the same – fielding squeaky clean candidates, taking donations only by cheque, putting up lists of donors on their websites. It’s just that the AAP has managed to grab national attention, thanks to the India Against Corruption Movement, in a way that the others did not.) 

When one talks about old-style politics, the association is always with caste-religion-community based politics and economically ruinous populism. A new kind of political culture should entail a movement away from such divisive and fiscally imprudent politics. Instead, the AAP has only continued down the same path, down to some well-known Muslim figures joining the party at a public function. At that do, Kejriwal admitted that there were already a large number of Muslims working for the party. He then gave a somewhat unconvincing explanation that this special function was organised to highlight the politics of hate that was taking centrestage. Couldn’t this be done in any other way than putting an AAP cap on top of a skull cap that one of those who joined wore? How is this kind of tokenism any different from what mainstream parties do? 

Take also the pamphlets that the AAP candidate have been distributing in their areas. The promises they make include waiving of water bills and providing 700 litres of water a day to every family free of charge, halving of electricity bills and regularisation of unauthorised colonies. Where is the new paradigm in this? A couple of months back, the Congress government in Delhi regularised a host of unauthorised colonies and is now tom-tomming it on FM radio ad spots. The BJP, which has been out of power for 15 years, has also been promising cheaper power bills.

Nor is the AAP lagging in making tall promises. One of the ads it has placed on the back of autorickshaws laments the lack of security for women in the capital and promises – hold your breath – an exclusive commando force for women! 

And now the issue of Yadav’s expulsion from the UGC. This is very clearly a vengeful and stupid move by the UPA government. But the idiocy and meanness of the human resource development ministry does not diminish the fact that Yadav is also not entirely in the clear. He had been appointed to the UGC as an academician, which is what all commission members are. When he joined the AAP, he should have quit the UGC. Yadav says he had offered to resign last year and that the UGC told him to stay on and that his removal has been done not by the UGC but the ministry. But this is a kind of hair-splitting that does not speak well of the leading light of a party taking the moral high ground all the time. If he had insisted on stepping down from the UGC when he formally joined the AAP, that would have been something completely different from the way normal politicians behave. 

Right now, the popular disenchantment with the mainstream parties is so overwhelming that the AAP is getting away with mere marketing gimmicks, passing off the same old model as a radically different product. There is, of course, the matter of whether the public really wants a different political discourse. There’s no getting away from the fact that people are not really concerned with their elected representatives framing and legislating sensible policies. All they want is for them to do favours – recommend a child to a school here, stop the demolition of an illegal construction there, swing something somewhere else. Corruption too is not as big an issue as it is being made out to be. It is an issue only if people see that the politicians are concentrating only on filling their personal coffers without addressing their problems. Let’s face it: honest people don’t get elected; `effective’ people do. If they are also honest, that’s an added bonus. 

The AAP has probably realised this and that is why it is not departing from old-style paternalistic, sops-driven politics. Right now, its only USP is the `added bonus’ – people with clean reputations. But if these people don’t deliver on the things the public wants, disillusionment will soon set in. And then the AAP will be just another party. Is it prepared for that?

Shooting from the Lip

Has law and justice minister Salman Khurshid done a service to Corporate India by his statement reported in the Indian Express: “If you lock up top businessmen, will investment come?”
He has not.
Worse, he has only ammo to the opponents of liberalization, who will cite this as yet another example of the government caving in to `neo-liberal forces’ and how opening up of the economy has only encouraged big-time corruption.
Remember Arundhati Roy and Prashant Bhushan saying the economic policies post-1991 were the reason for corruption becoming pervasive.
When will these Congress ministers learn to zip their lips?
The following is the exact context of his statement: “What will affect the functioning of the government is if other institutions do not understand the kind of political economy we are faced with today: what is needed to encourage growth and investment? If you lock up top businessmen, will investment come? What optimal structure should be put in place for investment to come?”
Obviously he was talking about corporate biggies – notably Unitech’s Sanjay Chandra and D B Realty’s Shahid Balwa –  currently in Delhi’s Tihar Jail facing trial on corruption charges in the 2G case.
But what does investment or the lack of it have to do with businessmen being in jail for corruption charges? If they are innocent, they will come out free. If they are not, they deserve to be in jail.
The Indian investment scenario isn’t suffering because of corruption charges against businessmen. It is suffering due to a poor investment environment – lack of policy clarity, squabbling ministers affecting both policy and its implementation in areas like mining, red tape, corruption (petty as well as high level) and now rising interest rates.
And, yes, corruption.
India ranks 134 in a list of 183 companies in the World Bank’s annual Doing Business report. Taking action against businessmen for corruption is not a criterion. The categories are starting and closing a business, dealing with construction permits, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders and enforcing contracts.  Go to this link to see how India fares on all this.
And in 2010, India slipped four notches in the global Corruption Perception Index – from 84 to 87. Ask anyone – this is a dampener for foreign investment.
Has no action ever been taken against corrupt businessmen in the United States or the United Kingdom or any other free market economy? Nowhere in the world will a minister go out and say taking action against corruption will discourage investment.
Khurshid will probably come out and clarify that he meant businessmen being jailed without proof. But that is what the trial process is about – to decide on whether someone is guilty or not guilty. Or is it his case that in corruption cases, it is okay for receivers of bribes to be jailed but not those who pay bribes? (I am not pronouncing a verdict on those jailed in the 2G case).
Corporate India can do without such supporters.
Instead of telling the courts to go easy on businessmen facing charges of corruption, it might be better for Khurshid to tell his Prime Minister, his party leader and ministerial colleagues to do something to improve the investment environment.

The Morally Upright Aren't Always Right

Like I said in my previous post, I have been observing this current anti-corruption crusade with some amusement and lot of cynicism. But now I am getting a tad worried.
People are just not willing to hear any criticism of Anna Hazare’s fast, the tactics employed by the worthies of the India Against Corruption movement or even objective analyses pointing out flaws in the Jan Lokpal legislation they are proposing. Business Standard carried an editorial, which had what could be called a needlessly provocative (though I found it very clever and apt) headline, The Hazare Hazard. The next day’s papers had three or four letters from readers criticizing the edit. The letters did not go into the merits and de-merits of the idea of ombudsman or of the legislation these activists are proposing, but were shocked that Anna Hazare was being criticised at all. Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s piece in the Indian Express has also invited a lot of flak.
I wonder how many people who are speaking up on social networking sites, fasting in sympathy with Hazare, shaving their heads, demonstrating and much else even know the broad contours of the Bill.
I haven’t and so I am not going into the Bill itself, Mehta’s article, this other piece by Rajiv Desai delve into those aspects.
I’m making a larger point – the unquestioning adulation we have for certain public figures who are either morally upright or highly efficient or both, because of which we are not willing to concede that they could be wrong sometimes. We are just not willing to accept that people we idolize can be flawed or that the wisdom or suitability of their actions can be questioned. And this adulation tends to make some of these public figures believe that what they say or do shouldn’t be criticised at all.
I am not even going into the whole Gandhi phenomenon here (not that I think Gandhi should not be criticised and he himself never wanted to be idolised). I am talking about much lesser mortals.
Take Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. No one doubts that he is honest. He knows that. So that is why he believes he should not be held responsible for all the scams that were taking place under his nose and which he could have, but didn’t, check.
Or take E Sreedharan, chairman of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). I got this sms from a friend after she saw pictures of Sreedharan with Hazare: “Sridharan in a-c bandwagon. How laughable! How he fought against rti applying to dmrc! How closed his account books r!”
Neither she nor I believe Sreedharan is corrupt. I admire him for his work on the Konkan Railway and then on the Delhi Metro. But I completely agree with the contents of her sms.
How can he cheer for a movement for more transparency when his organization functions with complete lack of it? After the collapse of an under-construction metro pillar in south Delhi in 2009, resulting in the death of six workers, someone filed a Right to Information application seeking details of the design and layout of the structure. DMRC refused to part with the information and took the battle up to the Delhi High Court which finally said it had to supply the information.
I have had personal experience of the complete lack of transparency at DMRC. While working on a story, I had requested some information from DMRC and an interview with Sreedharan. Some of the information I had requested was very basic which should have been there on the website but wasn’t. I was shocked at the kind of stonewalling that ensured. One woman from the public relations team called me and wanted to know whether I was doing a positive or negative story. “Don’t tell me it will be an objective story,” she said with a sarcastic laugh. When I refused to tell her in advance what kind of  a story it would be, the wait for answers got longer and the interview with Sreedharan never materialized. Finally, after much pursuing I got some information but innocuous ones. I never got details on cost overruns (which were reported in the press), cost per km and response to some criticisms by critics of the Metro concept. There was a certain arrogance in the refusal to reply to questions from a journalist who was trying to do a balanced story.
If Sreedharan has become a demi-God of sorts, we are all responsible for it. Remember the shock when he offered to resign in the wake of the pillar collapse? Everybody rushed to stop him and he finally took it back. If the Delhi Metro comes to a standstill without Sreedharan, who is to blame? Shouldn’t it be Sreedharan himself, for not doing proper succession planning?
Also recall the controversy over the model of the Hyderabad Metro project. Sreedharan raised a stink over certain aspects like real estate development. Perhaps he had a point. But I suspect that people got swayed less by the merits of his argument and more by the fact it was Sreedharan who was opposing it. It didn’t help that on the other side was a corporate house.
What puzzles me is that this is happening in India, the cradle of Hinduism which encouraged intellectual debates and questioning of established wisdom. But somewhere along the line, that intellectual tradition has taken backseat to one where you don’t question certain people, especially those who are more educated and knowledgeable than you.
The worst manifestation of it is in the kind of following godmen and godwomen command – blind devotion. I can understand if an illiterate and poorly educated person behaves this way, but why do highly educated people also do the same? Why don’t they read or reflect on things themselves instead of taking as Gospel truth something a morally upright person has said?
Honest and morally upright people can be wrong. It will be better for themselves and for the nation if they and everybody else accepts it.

Combating Corruption

Social activist Anna Hazare is on a fast-unto-death. This fighter against corruption  (he is the founder of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Aandolan who returned his Padmashri award because the Maharashtra government did not take action against corrupt forest officials) and campaigner for the Right to Information Act wants the government to start work to enact a Jan Lokpal Bill. Apparently, close to 150 people have joined in, according to one newspaper report.
So why am I not impressed? And why am I amused when a newspaper says the fast has galvanised the nation's fight against corruption?
What fight, I want to know.
I live in a middle class locality of Delhi built by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). DDA rules don't permit water tanks of more than 500 litres per flat on the terrace. Yet in the block I live in and in countless DDA flats across Delhi, people have installed 1000 litre tanks, endangering the structural stability of flats. Complaints are made, officials come to inspect and go away richer by a few hundreds or thousands. Unauthorised constructions abound, pavements have been encroached upon for gardens, motors installed on main water lines. In each case, ordinary middle class people - perfectly decent and respectable otherwise - have paid bribes so that they can flout the law.
When I was renovating my then recently acquired flat four years ago, a neighbour asked me if we could jointly build an extra room. I was agreeable till I found it was against the rules. When I mentioned this to his aged mother, she said, `don't worry, my son will take care of payment to the DDA officials. You don't have to talk to them." I put my foot down and said nothing doing.
These are the very same people who express shock at the various multi-crore scams our politicians and bureaucrats are involved in and rail against corruption in high places. They will praise Anna Hazare and maybe even go to see him. And when they are driving back, they will jump a red light and bribe the traffic cop.
Middle class people think it is okay for them to indulge in minor corruption but not for politicians to do the same on a grander scale. I had touched upon this in an earlier article, Morality of Middle Class Politics, where I had drawn a distinction between bribes that one is forced to give (to get perfectly legal things done) and the bribes that one gives willingly to do something that is patently illegal (unauthorised constructions and disobeying traffic rules, for example).
I feel it is possible to resist bribe demands of the first kind as well. After all, how long can someone hold back a death/birth/marriage certificate (believe me, this still happens) or an income tax refund or a completion certificate for a building.
Former chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Leela Seth, in her book A Fine Balance, relates the incident about how an inspector in Noida kept delaying a completion certificate for her house, hinting at a bribe. Finally he came to her house and denied the certificate because some column was a couple of inches smaller than the rules permitted. There was again a hint of a bribe to ignore this. Seth spent far more than what a bribe would have cost her to get the column redone. Still the inspector delayed her certificate by over a year.
This may not be a practical option for many. I know a recent case where a newly-married couple had to pay a bribe to get their marriage certificate because the bride had to appear for a visa interview with the certificate. I pride myself on never having bribed but if I was in their position would I have been able to stick to my moral high ground?
But what about bribes paid for what are known to be illegal actions? Are people who pay these petty bribes any better than the politicians involved in mega-scams? I don't think so.
Also, political parties tend to make corruption an election issue? But is it an issue for the electorate at all? Known corrupt people keep getting elected all the time. Not in the badlands of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar but everywhere. Both the DMK and the AIADMK regimes in Tamil Nadu have always been marked by corruption. Yet one or the other party keeps getting elected.
Anna Hazare may succeed in getting the kind of Lokpal Bill he wants. But will that stop people from electing corrupt politicians to legislatures? Will that stop people from offering bribes for an extra floor or room that is not permitted, for flouting some rule that is based on logic and safety concerns?
Denying oneself of food is not going to stop corruption. Denying oneself some comforts that can be got only through bribes is the only way to fight it.

Selective about Scams

Much is being made of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi snubbing the Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee honcho Suresh Kalmadi, under fire for mismanagement and corruption).

This is the first sign of the government’s resolve that it will not let the guilty in all the Games-related scams go unpunished. The country was assured that action would be taken immediately after the Games and that seems to have started (the logic behind not axing Kalmadi and other scam-tainted people earlier was that it was too close to the Games and that the event would suffer).

So why am I not too impressed by the cold-shouldering of Kalmadi.

For one, because it has come too late. That things were wrong with the way the Games were being organized were evident one year earlier when the government brought in several IAS officers into the Organising Committee to get things going after Michael Fennel, head of the Commonwealth Games Federation, publicly criticised delay in October 2009 (see this story: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100613/jsp/7days/story_12559538.jsp). Whispers about scams were doing the rounds long before the media got evidence of it and splashed it. So why wasn’t action taken then instead of waiting for media exposes and then expressing helplessness two months before the Games? 
And the real test will be - not the social boycott of Kalmadi - but actually bringing all the guilty to book and not making scapegoats of some, while others get away.

There is, however, a larger second point I want to make.

Why haven’t the Prime Minister or Sonia Gandhi snubbed other politicos at the centre of corruption charges?

The most glaring example, of course, is telecom minister A Raja, whose name crops up in the context of the 2G spectrum allocation scam, which is expected to cost the exchequer Rs 60,000 crore. Forget socially boycotting him, the Prime Minister takes Raja into the UPA-2 cabinet in the same ministry as he held in the UPA-1 cabinet, which is when the scam occurred. Giving a scam-tainted minister another ministry is hardly an attack on corruption, but it would have given this government some semblance of respectability. But no, even that was denied to this country.

If that weren’t bad enough, look at what happened on the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. The CVC is to be appointed by a panel that includes the Leader of the Opposition. This is to bring in a measure of impartiality into the appointment prevent charges of the CVC – who heads an office which has a crucial in checking corruption – being the stooge of the government of the day. But the following story will illustrate how even this important requirement is being treated in a cavalier fashion by none other than Manmohan Singh.

Sushma Swaraj – the Leader of the Oppostion – was called on Friday to a meeting with the Prime Minister and home minister (the panel to select the CVC) and presented with three names for the CVC’s post. She said she had no objection to two of the names but pointed out problems with the name of P J Thomas. She gave her reasons – not only did Thomas’ name figure in a scam in Kerala (he belongs to the Kerala cadre of the IAS) but more importantly, he was telecom secretary under Raja and, as CVC, would have to probe the 2G scandal. The Prime Minister and the home minister said they wanted Thomas. She said they could choose any of the other two. They didn’t agree. She then suggested that the panel of names be widened so that they had more choice. But they said there was no time to do that, since the new CVC was to be sworn in on Tuesday. She pointed out that there was time till Monday. But they didn’t agree and wanted to finalise Thomas’ name that day itself. At which point, she remarked that they didn’t just want his name finalized that day, but that very moment. Prithviraj Chavan, the minister of state in charge of personnel, public grievances and pension, and asked him to prepare a letter appointing Thomas as CVC. Swaraj then insisted on recording her dissent. Swaraj has gone public with this sequence of events and the government hasn’t really contradicted it.

Maybe the BJP’s fears that Thomas may scuttle the probe will prove unfounded; maybe Thomas may prove to be impartial. But the manner in which Thomas was appointed does make one uncomfortable.

If the government did not want the other two retired bureaucrats to be CVC why did it include their names in the panel? Clearly the government had made up its mind to appoint Thomas and expected the Opposition to go along with it silently. Unfortunately, because the main opposition party is the BJP, others are not raising enough of a stink.

What is this if not a sham and a mockery of the principle behind making it necessary to get the approval of the Leader of the Opposition? Is the Leader of the Opposition meant to rubber stamp the government’s choices on crucial appointments?

So far from boycotting Raja, the government appears to be going out on a limb to protect him.

In the light of this, the snub to Kalmadi is laughable. And the flurry of action against the Games-related scams evokes only a cynical sneer.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no sympathies for Kalmadi; I think he represents all that is wrong with Indian politics and sports (I am giving a link to a story we did in The Telegraph on the way Kalmadi has risen to dominate Indian sports http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100808/jsp/7days/story_12786018.jsp).

But this crusade against corruption in the Games will ring true only if it extends to ALL scams. We cannot afford to be selective about scams. 

A Cancer Without Cure

I am a member of Delhi Traffic Police's Facebook page, along with 17000 others. In the initial month or so, whenever someone used to sneer about traffic policemen taking bribes, I used to admonish them - no one can force you to give a bribe; follow traffic rules and then you won't have to deal with bribes; when you are stopped and challaned, just pay the fine, don't plead to be let off as that opens the doors for bribes.

I have always had this holier-than-thou attitude towards bribes and `baksheesh'. When the postman who brought my passport asked for `chai-paani' I told him to take the passport back. I was convinced I could use RTI to get my passport. And I have once used RTI to get the DDA to redress a problem caused by bribe-giving neighbours.

But that attitude has taken a serious blow.

If one is stopped for a traffic violation, there are two alternatives. One can either pay the fine on the spot and get a receipt. If one doesn't have the money or wants to challenge the challan, one has to surrender the driving licence/registration certificate and go to court.

Simple and straightforward isn't it?

But no.

Several people have written in on the DTP page complaining about arbitrariness by traffic policemen. Violators are stopped and either higher penalties than what the offence warranted are slapped on them or they are told to pay the fine in court even if they are prepared to pay right then.

The purpose behind this? Psyche violators into pleading to be let off and succumbing to bribe demands. In some cases, they didn’t even wait for the offender to plead. The choice was given right away – pay us a bribe or pay the challan in court. Some succumbed, others didn't and had to do the rounds of courts or had more charges slapped against them.

Some incidents made my blood run cold.

One young man was stopped on the grounds of having jumped a red light. He pointed out that the traffic signal wasn't working properly. When another motorist stopped and supported him, the policemen tried to note his number so that they could slap a few challans on him!!

Another person was stopped and told to pay Rs 1000 fine for jumping the red light (though the fine is only Rs 100) or pay a bribe of Rs 200. When he protested, the lone constable added false charges of drunken driving and lack of documents. When the young man refused to sign the challan with these false charges, another offence of misbehaviour with a public servant was added. His driving licence was impounded and he had to make two trips to the court to get it back.

I had said on the page once that this is nothing but extortion and thuggery by the traffic policemen.

What is even more worrying is that I had raised a few broad questions for senior traffic police officials to answer – is there a policy to slap a Rs 1000 penalty for jumping the red light; if a person is willing to pay the challan on the spot can the policeman insist that it be paid in court; if one challenges a challan, what are the procedures? There has been total silence on this, though I have repeated these questions (though the special commissioner (traffic) has intervened in a couple of instances). Clearly the traffic police brass are either unwilling or unable to check their men on the street.

The only uplifting aspect of all this is a few people refusing to pay bribes and even those who have are coming out into the open and explaining the circumstances in which they paid the bribe and identifying the policemen. In each case, it shows up police bullying at its worst. It’s easy to say stand up to bullying but it’s far more difficult to practice.

The young man in the first incident decided to pay in court rather than pay a bribe. But one of the other page members said that in court, these cases are treated summarily, so the judge has no time to listen to one’s explanations. And as the second incident shows, the ordeal isn’t over in one day.

Paying the fine on a wrong charge and then contesting it also doesn’t help. The special commissioner traffic, intervening in one complaint of a wrong challan, told the complainant he could go meet a particular officer but there is no provision to refund a challan. The police holds all the aces; the people hold all the duds.

In 2004, I was part of a team that brought out a Liberal Budget. One criticism made was that there was nothing in the document to reduce or eliminate corruption. I had responded that we believe scope for corruption would fall dramatically if the state gets out of micro-managing the economy and red tape reduced. Indeed, examples are often cited of how there is no need for bribes to get a telephone connection merely because supply has increased.

But all this logic falls flat when one comes across the kind of extortion that Delhi’s traffic police are indulging in.

But why only the police?

Take income tax. A very well-respected economist, who had been with the Planning Commission long back, had some income coming in as consultant. Being honest to the core, he didn’t show false expenditures and his accounts were all in order. Nothing hanky panky at all But the assessing officer asked his chartered accountant for a bribe – he gave a list of things worth Rs 10,000. The accountant said he could not ask his client. He told the officer who the gentleman was, only to be told that the officer was sitting on a senior cabinet minister’s file! He told the accountant that if he could not ask his client, he should pay the bribe out of his own fees.

Jurist Leila Seth, in her memoirs, talks about how an inspector refused to give the completion certificate for her house, because she refused to bribe. After much pressure he came and said some essential construction was 4 inches less than the required measurement. Leila Seth spent double the amount he was asking as bribe to break down that particular element and reconstruct it. And the guy still took a year to give the certificate. When told who she was, he said I have made ministers and cabinet secretaries succumb.

My friend Sunil Varma’s angst-ridden Facebook status message -- "I'm convinced, we Indians are the most corrupt people in the world! p.s. - Any argument with me on this assertion is quite pointless..." – set off this post.

Sunil gives the example of his friend’s husband who tried to get a power connection for his factory through legitimate means. Apparently the electricity would be cut off every day on grounds of load shedding. The poor man finally had to succumb.

Increasing supply of goods and service providers could eliminate corruption in some areas. This gentleman may not have had to succumb to bribe demands if power distribution was not a monopoly. Technology can also help – it has reduced the role of touts in regional transport offices.

But what is the solution to the kind of extortion that we are seeing on Delhi's roads and in income tax offices? You can't have competition in law and order enforcement or in tax assessment and collection (though many of my libertarian friends may say yes, you can).

I just want to repeat something I said on Sunil's page - corruption is no longer something about which to feel sad about. It's bloody scary.

The Four Cs

There is little doubt that four Cs have been the bane of Indian politics for some time now. They are – not necessarily in order of importance or significance – communalism, criminalisation of politics, corruption and casteism. Each of these (barring criminalisation) was made a major issue by some political grouping or the other. So what verdict did voters give? I feel that despite fulminating against all these evils and blaming politicians for fostering them, people haven’t reacted sufficiently against them.

Communalism

Everybody says that Verdict 2009 was a vote for the middle path, that people rejected the politics of polarisation. The evidence that is being offered is:

# the poor performance of the BJP, which also found its vote share dropping from 22.4 per cent in 2004 to 18.8 per cent in 2009.

# the lacklustre performance of the party in Gujarat – headed by an extremely polarising Narendra Modi – where also its vote share dropped from 47.37 per cent to 46.52 per cent and it managed to increase its 2004 tally of 14 seats by just one (it now has 15 seats in Gujarat).

# the poor performance of the Shiv Sena – far more polarising than the BJP or even Modi – which won only 11 of the 47 seats it contested and found its vote share dropping from 1.81 per cent in 2004 to 1.55 in 2009.

But is this enough to presume a rejection of communal politics? Somehow I am not sure. After all a hate-spewing Varun Gandhi won, with a huge margin. Of course, there is the possibility that this could be because his mother had nurtured that constituency. And the BJP’s lacklustre performance across the country is being attributed to the disenchantment with its lack of firm action against Varun. But I am fairly sure that the hate speech – or at least the over-the-top action taken against him – did swing things in his favour. The drop in the party’s vote share in Gujarat between 2004 and 2009 is less than 1 per cent. That means the Modi brand of politics still has a significant number of takers.

If the Shiv Sena did poorly, it had a lot to do with the fact that the Maharashtra Navnirman Samiti, which had exactly the same plank as the Shiv Sena, cut into its votes hugely, something that made Bal Thackeray fume publicly.

Corruption

I have always held that the Indian voters may love to carp about corruption in plush drawing rooms as well as DTC buses, but that is hardly an issue in elections. Yes, it became an issue in 1989, when the Bofors scandal shook the nation. But that was probably because of the scale of corruption involved and that the Prime Minister himself was under a cloud. But has it ever been an issue after that? Why, Rajiv Gandhi was all set to return to power n 1991 when he was assassinated. Sukh Ram, the telecom minister in whose house currency notes were found stashed in mattresses, had no problem getting elected. The DMK and the AIADMK keep getting voted in and out alternately even though they are known to be corrupt. Similar examples abound. So if anyone thinks voters are going to rise in anger against corruption and throw bribe-seeking politicians out, they would be well advised to perish the thought.

Criminalisation

Many people I know have been heaving a sigh of relief that high-profile criminals like Atiq Ahmad, Mitrasen Yadav, Mukhtar Ansari, Taslimuddin, Abu Azmi and Mohd Tahir as well as the wives of Pappu Yadav and Mohammed Shahabuddin got defeated. But the verdict against criminalisation is also mixed. The Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has been tracking the financial and criminal backgrounds of legislators has done an analysis of the winners in these elections and its findings are interesting:

# The number of MPs with criminal charges has actually increased – from 128 in 2004 to 153 in 2009.

# The number of MPs with serious criminal records has also increased – from 55 to 74 – between 2004 and 2009.

But there appears to be a silver lining.

# In 85 per cent of constituencies where only one candidate had criminal cases, voters chose the clean candidates. In 68 per cent of constituencies where there were two candidates with criminal backgrounds, clean candidates were chosen. The percentage of clean candidates however went down to around 40 per cent in constituencies with four or five candidates.

The press releases (available on the ADR website http://www.adrindia.org) are not very well drafted and I am not sure if I have paraphrased them properly. The data in the tables is also a bit confusing – how does ADR define criminal charges and serious criminal charges, for example. (This isn’t nitpicking but even defying prohibitory orders to demonstrate is a crime under the IPC). Anyway, this this gives a sense of the general drift – there is no overwhelming verdict against criminalisation.

Caste

Of the four Cs, I am most optimistic about the role of caste diminishing. I know I am sticking my head out by saying this, given how the caste composition of a constituency determines the choice of candidates. Some people also cite the poor showing by Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party, which won only 21 of the 500 seats it contested and couldn’t put up a sterling performance even in Uttar Pradesh where it is in power as further proof of the voter rejection of caste-based appeals, which also polarise. But the BSP actually increased its vote share to 6.12 per cent from 5.35 per cent in 2004. why I am confident in spite of that, is that I believe Mayawati’s debacle has to do with a range of factors that relate to governance, among other things. The upper castes who voted for her in the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections in 2007 had done so because she held out hope for an alternative to the corrupt and criminalised Samajwadi Party government. There was no way they would have voted for a Dalit party, whose slogan was `tilak, tarazu aur talwar, inko maaro joote chaar’. When they found her government was not very different, they dumped her. So when they believed she would perform, her caste didn’t matter. When she belied those expectations, her caste-based appeals didn’t work.

Clearly, we are going to have to suffer the four Cs for some more time. They cannot be eliminated unless voters rise decisively against them.

Mayawati and the Middle Class

I am getting a bit tired of all criticism of the idea of Mayawati as Prime Minister being attributed to urban English-speaking middle class snobbery and a class prejudice. I have seen several commentators take this line in recent months, the latest being Suryakant Waghmore in today's Indian Express.

I am quoting from his article (to which I have provided a link) only because I have it in front of me, but the points that he makes have been made by several others.

First he says "while the English speaking middle class largely opposes Mayawati because of her caste, they do not express this by hurling caste abuses. They try to respond (not react) through English politeness and thus create a new English speaking middle class caste-culture.

"This, surely, runs contrary to a truly liberal attitude that would have celebrated Mayawati's great success and recognised what she has done as a single Dalit woman without any family legacy, in a highly patriarchal and hostile environment."

Now this is patently ridiculous. I have a sneaking admiration for Mayawati for where she has taken the BSP. I am sure that she could not have done this if it were not for Kanshi Ram's patronage, but I concede that she could have wasted that patronage but did not. I fully agree with Waghmore that "Mayawati and BSP's growth represents the deepening of democracy in India."

But look beyond that. What else is Mayawati known for? Personal aggrandisement and corruption. Has she done anything for Dalits or for the state in each of her tenures? Or even the current tenure, when the BSP has a complete majority? Apart from building statues and monstrous memorials, that is? Waghmore comments on English speaking middle class obsession with her statues. But why shouldn't that be subject to criticism? Is that a measure of development of the state or the uplift of Dalits? When, in 2007, Mayawati came to power on the basis of a new social coalition, eschewing the upper caste hatred that had marked the BSP's politics till then, many expected that this would be a sobering influence on her and that she would behave in a more responsible way, focussing on administration and good governance. Two years on, can anyone testify that she has done that? She appeared to be making some right moves in the beginning, especially on the economic front. But she quickly backtracked. The counter argument is that the Mulayam Singh was equally bad. Sure, but the thought of Mulayam Singh as Prime Minister will also frighten a lot of people. Sure no government has ever done anything for Dalit uplift. But does that mean Mayawati should not be criticised for doing nothing for the group she claims to work for?

Arguments like Waghmore's precludes the possibility of the urban middle class reacting to issues like corruption and personal aggrandisement. Despite my cynicism about its apathy, I think this is an unfair charge. The middle class was quite accepting of a Dalit as president and now as Chief Justice of India. If it was reacting purely on the basis of prejudice, then there would have been equally sharp reactions to these appointments.

I am an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin. I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister. But I am equally petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha (who is not a Dalit but an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin) becoming Prime Minister. Because Jayalalitha's regimes have also been marked by rampant corruption and a highly personalised style of functioning. Just like Mayawati.

I am petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister. Not because he is a Yadav or because of his rustic ways, but because of the way he ruined Bihar. I am more comfortable with the idea of Nitish Kumar as Prime Minister, even though he is a Kurmi and though he is an engineer by education, he is not an English speaking urban middle class person. I am petrified of Ram Vilas Paswan becoming Prime Minister one day not because he is a Dalit but because of stories about his corrupt ways. But I am also petrified of Kamal Nath, an English-speaking urban middle class person, becoming Prime Minister (never mind that he probably doesn't have those ambitions) again because of his reputation for corruption.

Behind such insinuations of the kind Waghmore makes is the belief that Mayawati should not be opposed or criticised just because she is a Dalit. This is carrying the politics of victimhood a bit too far.