Unravelling the 2G scam

December 12, 2010 2:54:25 PM

Bibek Debroy

Neither the PAC nor a JPC will serve the purpose of a full investigation into the 2G Spectrum scandal. We need an independent committee

W hat is the Public Accounts Committee? This is how the Lok Sabha Secretariat defines it: “The Committee on Public Accounts is constituted by Parliament each year for examination of accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament for expenditure of Government of India, the annual Finance Accounts of Government of India, and such other Accounts laid before Parliament as the Committee may deem fit such as accounts of autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies (except those of Public Undertakings and Government Companies which come under the purview of the Committee on Public Undertakings).”

As this quote illustrates, the PAC is singularly inappropriate for examining the mother of all scams, since “presumptive” losses aren’t about properly spending money sanctioned by Parliament. There is a further quote too. “The Committee thus examines cases involving losses, nugatory expenditure and financial irregularities.” But even this doesn't fit the bill. In addition, PAC deliberations are held in camera and are confidential, outside the public eye. Second, the PAC cannot summon a Minister. It can summon a “representative of a Ministry”, interpreted as bureaucracy. Third, between 1950 and 2004 (till the 13th Lok Sabha), there were 1,310 PAC reports and not a single one remotely approaches issues the 2G scam raises. The PAC works through an action taken report and a possible action taken statement by Government. Neither seems appropriate here. Fourth, the PAC’s terrain doesn’t cover criminal angles and judicial procedures.

There has been a recent Global Financial Integrity report, authored by Mr Dev Kar. This estimates illicit financial flows from India between 1948 and 2008 and finds, contrary to a priori expectations, capital flight has increased post-1991. Forget eye-popping numbers, those have been reported in the media. In the present context, the relevant point is that corruption has increased between 2004 and 2008 and this illegal income found its way overseas.

Increase in graft and greed has now been officially accepted. This is not the kind of corruption typical Transparency International surveys throw up. Those are generally about small-ticket corruption connected with public services. In the Radia tapes, a reported conversation has a nugget. Translated into English, “Now the Congress is our shop.” However, this isn't about the Congress alone. ‘Chor’ and ‘kotwal’ are fungible across all political parties. With Mr BS Yeddyurappa and the Belllary brothers, who knows what deals will be struck where? Who knows about quid pro quos in the Taj corridor case? How does it work in naïve interpretations of democracy? We have the Constitution. We have the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. This is a Government for ‘We the People’ and citizen interests will be safeguarded by these three organs.

All the evidence existed before 2009 and there was no reason for Mr A Raja to be included in the Cabinet. However, if we are still naïve, the Radia tapes show how networks of politicians, lobbyists, industry leaders, bureaucrats and mediapersons subverted naïve notions of democracy. A former Law Minister says eight out of 16 former Chief Justices are corrupt. Many in Central and State legislatures have criminal charges against them. There have been land scams involving Lieutenant-Generals. Satyendra Dubey was killed. Crores were found from the house of an IAS couple in Madhya Pradesh. The Central Vigilance Commission routinely publishes lists of corrupt Government officials.

Che Guevara once said, “Democracy cannot solely be of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians.” Clearly, having voted, we cannot outsource management of democracy and assume our interests will be taken care of. The Fourth Estate may now be equated with the media, but when Edmund Burke coined the expression in 1787, he didn’t intend it that way. He meant all those who were outside the traditional three estates (Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal, Commons) of Parliament then. Thus, the Fourth Estate is nothing but civil society, and the media is a subset.

Without countervailing pressure by civil society, today’s India would have been worse. Consumer and environment movements wouldn’t have existed. Nor would there have been rights to information and education. More pertinently, though the media didn’t cover itself with glory in the Radia affair, it was some variants of media that reported these tapes and uncovered the 2G scam, not to speak of the CWG and Adarsh Housing scams. The CAG and the Supreme Court came later.

Therefore, public interest is not served if the 2G scam investigations are held in camera, outside public scrutiny. That is what we would have with a conventional PAC. Simultaneously, the CVC doesn’t possess investigative powers, barring limited civil works. The CBI is not only under Government control, former Directors and Joint Directors of the CBI have written about corruption in the CBI and undermining of investigations. Mr BR Lall, a former Joint Director, has a book titled, Who Owns CBI? and this has a sub-title of , The Naked Truth.

The Opposition wants a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Other than discomfort with alternatives, such as the PAC, arguments for a JPC aren’t clearly spelt out. A lot depends on TOR and there is no clear template in earlier JPCs. The only JPC where Ministers were asked to tender evidence and public was privy to what was happening was the one on “Irregularities in Securities and Banking Transactions”. However, there too, recommendations weren’t accepted or implemented, at least not entirely. Consequently, a JPC doesn't solve the problem.

Since 1974, Hong Kong has had an Independent Commission Against Corruption and this continues after 1997. When it was first set up, wags referred to the ICAC as “I can accept cash”. However, the ICAC has worked, precisely because it is independent. What we are missing is an equivalent of the ICAC and some day, we will move towards it, if political parties let us. In the interim, we have this pointless debate between PAC and JPC. Neither is the answer and nomenclature isn’t important.

We want a joint committee that can summon Ministers. We want one where proceedings are open and not in camera. In afore-mentioned JPC, public knew what was happening because the chairman organized Press briefings. That’s not good enough. We want a committee with some judicial powers. We want a committee to which investigating agencies (like the CBI) will report. We want a committee that will be aided by the CAG, as the PAC is. This effectively becomes something like a short-term ICAC and provides the base for a permanent ICAC.

If the Congress is concerned about graft and greed, this is what it should agree to. And if the Opposition wishes to do something about corruption, beyond fishing in muddied political waters, this is what it should change its demand to. But every political party has skeletons in the cupboard (or closet). So this is what the Fourth Estate should demand.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/300365/Unravelling-the-2G-scam.html