The Rediff Special/Promila Kalhan
'Nothing can be got done in this country without paying a bribe'
Gulzarilal Nanda has just been awarded the Bharat Ratna.
By awarding him its highest civilian honour, the government has finally recognised Nanda's distinguished services to the nation, first as freedom fighter, then as Union minister and twice as interim prime minister.
In an India where a chief minister steps down from office after being charged with graft and then instals his wife in his stead, it is perhaps appropriate to recall Nanda's long crusade against corruption which ended in his ouster as Union home minister.
Fighting corruption in all walks of life and at all levels had
been Nanda's fervent desire during the major part of his life.
It was perhaps the one passion which marked his character. As
home minister in the 1960s he emphasised time and again that
he considered eradication of corruption to be a matter of national
importance and assured the government's full support and help to central
and state officers engaged in this task. He spoke to various sections
of the people -- government servants, industrialists, and colleagues
among members of Parliament and ministers, everyone he could, to
find ways of checking the evil of corruption.
His reasons were
sound and all pervading. He said: ''There is a general belief
that corruption is rampant and that it affects all levels. It
is believed that nothing can be got done in this country without
paying a bribe. There is a general compliant of unconscionable
delays, the delay being contrived in some cases to compel payment
of bribe. Bribery is resorted to in order to get they work done
quickly even when what is being asked is something legitimate
or proper. This can be remedied by tightening up procedures, simplifying
them wherever necessary and by avoiding delays. The government
is under obligation to ensure quick, honest and fair disposal
of its business. Anxious thought has been given as to how the
situation can be remedied..
'A three-way approach has been visualised.
The first is setting up of a Central Vigilance Commission charged
with the duty of ensuring that complaints of corruption and misconduct
and other malpractices are speedily investigated and that offenders
are brought to book without fear of favour. The second step is
the creation of a Department of Administrative Reforms charged
with the duel task of implementing recommendations made in the
past by committees and individuals which have not yet received
adequate attention. The Administrative Reforms Department will
also deal with administrative delays, ascertain the causes of
delay and ensure that the procedures are such as leave no room
for delays. The third step is the creation of a machinery for
redress of grievances.'
It was Nanda's belief that the temptation of corruption originated
in social demands -- costly habits, artificial ways of living
and the desire for social imitation. Conspicuous consumption and
wasteful ways were out of place in this country. Canons of simplicity
had, therefore, to be built into the social structure. Leakages
of official information, he felt, was a prolific source of corruption.
Persons interested in certain matters mainly connected with business
and industry tried to obtain information about cases at various
stages in the course of a file.
With regard to the bribe-giver
he felt that those who attempted to corrupt public servants must
also be brought to book. The bribe-giver was as responsible of
the offence as the bribe-taker. A clean and efficient administrative
machinery, he felt, would lead to substantial economy in administration
and development expenditure and our limited resources would go
much further in achieving social and economic progress if they
were freed from the taint of the sacrifice of public funds and public
interest.
Addressing a conference of officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation,
special police establishment, besides vigilance officers of various
ministries and state anti-corruption organisations in October
1963, Nanda said, 'there might be two opinions as to whether
corruption has increased in recent years. We have no precise measures
if it is so but there is a feeling in certain quarters that bribery
and corruption have now become more widespread and that they have
infiltrated into those rungs of the public services in which they
were not prevalent in the past.
'Very largely our services are
manned by honest persons. The vast majority of our public servants
are men of integrity and they perform their duties and functions
with fairness, propriety and independence. But the number of those
whose conduct is not above reproach is not small either. The evil
of corruption has spread its tentacles widely. As government activities
extend into new fields, particularly in the sphere of industry,
trade and commerce, the need for keeping the public services clean
and efficient becomes all the greater.
'Some people in high positions in business and industry have
told me that they are compelled to give illegal gratification,
otherwise legitimate things are not done and their work suffers.
I have assured them that I will do my best to help them if they
are harassed because they have refused to give a bribe. Arrangements
will have to be made for carrying out this assurance. It would
be relevant to mention here the plight of those who complain and
give information about cases of corruption. They are immediately
faced with a kind of conspiracy to hurt and victimise them. I
know several public-spirited persons who have passed on information
to the authorities and have suffered on that account.'
The home minister added that no officer about whose integrity
there is a reasonable suspicion should be kept in a post which
provides opportunities for corruption. An officer whose reputation
is in doubt should be warned and a watch should be kept on him.
In considering an officer for promotion grant of extension, re-employment:
and in deciding whether he should be continued in service after
he has attained the age of retirement or has put in thirty years'
of service, his integrity must be taken into account.
It was the
wide prevalence of corruption which led Nanda to think of ways
to help build character. That is why he looked up to saints and
sages as well as social workers of a high quality to preserve
and nourish the ethical standards and moral values of the community.
India being a poor country, the common man had to undergo many
privations and austerity. Conspicuous consumption and wasteful
ways led to bowing down to temptations and corruption. While undertaking
measures to ensure a clean administration, the country was also
faced with another problem, namely, the way to deal with corruption
in high places, in particular with people in politics.
It was in fact, on June 6, 1962 Lal Bahadur Shastri was home minister,
that an announcement was made concerning the setting up of the
Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. Besides Santhanam
the committee had five members of Parliament and two senior officers.
Its recommendations were unanimous.
Were the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee too drastic?
Could they perhaps lead to frivolous charges being made against
some ministers? Is that why a strong reaction to the Santhanam
Committee's report was that once an allegation against a minister
was made, the prime minister and chief minister should first satisfy
themselves that the charges were not frivolous?
Bhupesh Gupta, member of the
Rajya Sabha, in a letter dated July 10, 1964 to Nanda
blamed him for not accepting the report outright. In Bhupesh Gupta's
words, 'I should have thought, instead of making the procedure
less complicated, dilatory and discouraging, you would improve
upon the committee's recommendations in the other direction. You
should be satisfied when a complaint is filed against a minister
by ten members of Parliament or a state legislature, and the matter
should, as the committee suggests be straightaway referred to
a committee of national panel...'
But Nanda was a godfearing man and could not allow the floodgates
to be opened in the face of some minister who might have been
innocent. He was a man given to caution and perhaps quite rightly.
Suggestions were made to him that he should not think of dropping
the Santhanam Committee's report, but look for a via media. This
was acceptable to him. Nanda was not a man given to arrogance.
He always tried to put himself in the place of those who could
be vainly blamed and hurt.
Nanda, however, was of the view in common with a good many other
leaders of public opinion that at the prevailing juncture in India
corruption must be curbed. While in individual cases the government
had dealt with the problem of corruption at the political level,
it was of the highest importance that a proper institutional machinery
was set up for the purpose. This alone could carry conviction
with the people. However, it was felt that some further safeguards
were necessary to protect ministers against baseless allegations.
If it was found on the face of it or after such enquiries as the
prime minister or the home minister may have made and found that
there was a prima facie case against a minister he could normally
be asked to step down. In certain cases this itself could be
expected to suffice. If the nature of the case called for further
action this could be taken in accordance with the circumstances
of the case through a suitable agency. If ten or more MPs made
a formal allegation in writing to the prime minister through the
Speaker or the chairman, the prime minister should consider himself
obliged by convention to have enquiries made into the allegations,
provided that the allegations were supported by affidavits sworn
by all the signatories.
It was further suggested that the complaining
MPs' signatures must be supported by the leaders of their political
parties. As a further safeguard to protect the ministers it was
suggested that should the complaint be found to be baseless and
there was a reasonable inference of notice against a minister
the committee of privileges could move the House to remove the
complaining MP. Also, while a compliant was being investigated,
the complaining MPs should keep the matter to themselves and not
give it any publicity.
The Santhanam Committee also stated that
ministers against whom allegations were made could as a rule institute
legal proceedings by filling a complaint for criminal defamation
and they could expect legitimate assistance from the government
Tell us what you think of this extract
|