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.
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.”
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.
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.)
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