.
.
.
.
It usually rains here, when I write about and copy paste Indian articles around corruption in India.......the heavens are both nervous and animated.
Maybe the PM has a clean, nice smiley image, but if massive corruption by government agencies and legislation through HIS GOVERNMENT creates the problem then he is just as culpable as the wrong doers directly.
If AK Anthony has a clean image but there is massive corruption in the MOD around military tenders and contracts, involving $ billions then he is just as culpable as the wrong doers directly.
If Sharad Pawar has a reputation for corruption then its the PM's fault for keeping him in the cabinet, and giving him newer responsibilities.
I'm note quite sure how another anti-corruption agency will solve the problem of corruption in India, but the best place to start often is at the top with the PM, and the general secretary of the party........those people who make the critical key decisions which lead to corruption.
No point going after foot soldier token scape goats. GO AFTER THE BIG ONES.
__________________
Impasse over Lokpal: Is there a lesson in the 2G scam?
By Shalini Singh of the Times of India blog.
Anna fasts to include PM in Lokpal. Govt says no. Is there a lesson in the 2G scam?
One of Anna Hazare's main demands, leading to his renewed fast against the government's brutal attack on the common man at Ramlila Grounds is the government's refusal to negotiate on the PM being brought under the purview of the Lokpal Bill.
A careful analysis of the government's resistance fails to demonstrate good intent, both because the demand is unconstitutional and also because the logic that opening the PM's office to public scrutiny affects the image of the nation is fairly puerile. It basically means that even if the PM is culpable or guilty of corruption he should remain in office, rather than creating a structure and process that makes it impossible for the PM to blame coalition pressures or use other inane excuses to justify big corruption.
An examination of the PM's culpability in the 2G spectrum scam alone, establishes this fairly strongly. Initially, despite the ToI pre-announcing the scam in over 50 articles, the PM maintained a stoic silence on the issue and did nothing to restrain ex-telecom minister A Raja. Recently, when forced to comment on the issue in February, the PM blamed Raja for the whole mess and said he did nothing because the finance ministry had agreed with Raja's policies.
Because of the PM's complicity, now the finance secretary and his team who will be deposing in front of the JPC investigating the 2G spectrum scam on Wednesday, June 8, will also have to play Jekyll and Hyde. They have a hard task cut out for them as they will be required to take sides either with the PM or with P Chidambaram, who was the finance minister at the time the 2G scam was played out.
This promises to be a tough choice for this relatively new team, which has had little or no dealings with the 2G spectrum scam or its actors.
The political dilemma for the finance ministry (finmin) arises on account of the PM's statements on the 2G scam at a TV editors' press meet on February 16, which contradicts official documents which have formed the backbone of the 2G investigation - the CAG report and the Shivraj Patil One Man Committee (OMC) Report.
The PM publicly stated at the press meet that the reason why he did not restrain Raja beyond the exchange of a few letters was because, consistent with the Cabinet decision of 2003, the issue of spectrum pricing in 2007-08 had been discussed between the DoT and MoF - who had mutually "concurred on the issue". This query about the so-called 'concurrence' has been raised at several forums to Chidambaram but failed to elicit an explicit response.
Documentary evidence, however, shows that far from concurrence, there was absolute disagreement, even a breakdown, on the spectrum pricing issue between the MoF and the DoT. The first definitive evidence emerges out of the CAG report which, in Section 3.2, quotes the MoF as observing that, "In view of the directions of the Union Cabinet (October 2003) and particularly in absence of the requisite clarity in the recommendations of the TRAI and the decisions of the Union Cabinet, in regard to fixation of entry fee for new licenses, prudent principles of governance would have required the DoT to engage in further inter-ministerial discussions particularly with the MoF. The fact that this was not done despite repeated advises from the MoF does give scope for creation of doubt, on the validity of the decision taken to fix the entry fee for new licenses at 2001 levels".
Apart from this statement recorded by the CAG from the MoF as late as January 2010, there is also evidence that two letters were exchanged between the finance secretary and the DoT secretary on November 27, 2007 and November 29, 2007 respectively.
The then finance secretary, D Subbarao (present RBI governor) had vehemently objected to giving away spectrum at the 2001 price of Rs 1600 crore and, in fact, directed the DoT to immediately halt issuance of licenses. The DoT secretary in turn had explained that the decision was proceeding along the lines of a 2003 Cabinet decision. These letters fail to exhibit concurrence. Additionally, unless there was a verbal agreement between Chidambaram and Raja, the DoT affidavit in the Supreme Court dated November 11, 2010 confirms in Section 93 that apart from these two letters, "Hereafter, no reference or communication was received".
Further, the Patil report instituted by telecom minister, Kapil Sibal has concluded for the period 2004-08 that, "If the entry fee was not to be revised to reflect the opportunity cost and when competitive bidding for determining entry fee was not followed, since the matter had financial bearing, before finalizing of procedure for grant of license/allotment of spectrum, concurrence of finmin ought to have been taken under Rule 4 of the GoI Transaction of Business. This is yet one more deviation from extant policy".
The finmin is now up against its own word to the CAG, the Union's petition in the Supreme Court and the report. If the finmin, consistent with the PM's statement, admits that the finmin had 'concurred', then it drags Chidambaram right in the middle of the 2G spectrum scam. On the other hand, if it stands by its own statement to the CAG and the findings of the Patil report, then it could cause considerable embarrassment to the PM.
If the PM had been answerable under the Lokpal at the time the 2G scam was being played out, would he have been in a position to hide behind the DoT and finmin's "concurrence"? Or allowed Raja to run amuck? Could he have offered coalition pressures as an excuse? It appears fairly reasonable to assume that within the purview of a Lokpal Bill and the real threat of imprisonment, any PM would ensure that no pressure or excuse could override his writ even if he had to strengthen his office and capacity to perform more efficiently.
Would not an upright PM who is honest himself and who enforces honesty through his Cabinet brighten the image of our country more than protecting or covering up the misdemeanors of a compromised or weak PM?
Based on the evidence, please judge for yourself.
