By Swapan Dasgupta
There were many long faces in Whitehall last week at
the news that the Government of India had chosen to purchase fighter aircraft
from the French rather than the European consortium which included Britain.
British Prime Minister David Cameron who had set great store in the “enhanced
partnership” with India was widely berated in the British media for a “botched”
initiative that had included persisting with aid to an India that didn’t really
want it.
Amid this despondency, it was refreshing to hear a
contrarian view from a British civil servant with long experience in dealing
with India. He viewed the Indian decision on combat aircraft purchases as
unfortunate, but entirely understandable. The French bid, he explained, was
nominally cheaper. “In this climate of anti-corruption, did you really expect
India to go for the more expensive aircraft? No Indian will be penalised for
opting for the cheaper bid.”
His logic was faultless and, coming in the wake of
the Supreme Court verdict cancelling the 2-G licences, was also astute. In
India, there may well be scepticism over the long-term impact on the judgment.
Will it really help to curb corruption or at least bring it down to more
manageable levels? Cynical Indians will reply with a categorical “No” but
outsiders will be inclined to take a more charitable view. Indian ministers,
they may well have concluded, can no longer afford to be as brazen as the
hapless A.Raja. From now on, at least until the dust settles, they will be
inclined to be far more careful.
This is really the issue at the heart of the 2-G
judgment. It is rare for the apex court to debunk an entire policy of the
Government as being born of mala-fide considerations. It is equally rare for
the Supreme Court to cloak an entire policy of the Government in the cloak of
criminality. But this is precisely what the Supreme Court has done: dubbed
policy making in the telecom sector a criminal enterprise and against national
interests.
All the sophistry of the Congress’
lawyer-turned-politicians will not be able to obfuscate this grim reality. Of
course the judgment was against a policy and didn’t specify individual
culpability. But since policies don’t emerge from thin air or by the grace of
God but are entirely man made, it necessarily follows that the court judgment
constitutes a damning indictment of the integrity of the decision-makers. In even
more blunt terms the judgment was an indictment of the Manmohan Singh Cabinet.
True, there will be a spirited debate over which
ministers were particularly culpable. Was the Prime Minister’s Office guilty of
omission or commission? Did the Finance Minister condone his colleague’s wilful
short-changing of the public exchequer? Was the first-come-first-serve approach
a mere fig leaf for the institutionalisation of crony capitalism? These, and
similar questions will be the subject of CBI inquiries and criminal
prosecutions in the coming days.
The question is: will the assault on the
Government’s credibility over the 2-G scandal force a change in the culture of
decision-making? Or will a good performance by the Congress in the state
Assembly elections be taken to mean that it is not the judiciary but voters who
will judge the quantum of illegality. If the Congress performs creditably, will
the Government claim that it has been exonerated in the court of the people?
The initial signs are not encouraging. The Congress
has reacted to the unfavourable judgment by trying to appear unfazed and even
claiming that the Supreme Court has actually pilloried the NDA Government which
demitted office in May 2004. Some of this bravado can be explained by the
imperatives of an ongoing election campaign—dejection at the top, it is said,
leads to demoralisation at the grassroots. Yet, what is regrettable is that the
Congress has not shown even an iota of contrition.
The Indian electorate is quite forgiving if the
guilty party goes before with folded hands and an apology. For all its
transgressions, the Congress is remarkably lucky that it has Manmohan Singh at
the helm. This is because the main charge against the Prime Minister is not
that he was caught with his hands in the till but that he wilfully chose to
look the other way while some of his colleagues systematically drained the
exchequer of billions of rupees. The popular gripe is not against a dishonest
Prime Minister but a weak Prime Minister who has allowed the country to be
taken for a ride by venal colleagues and coalition partners.
These circumstances don’t exonerate the Prime
Minister. Indeed, history is likely to judge him very harshly but at the full
extent of popular fury and disgust will not directed against him—as happened to
Rajiv Gandhi during the Bofors controversy—because he still retains the image
of innate decency. Had the Congress been wise, it would have advised the Prime
Minister to offer a mealy-mouthed apology to the nation. By choosing to brazen
it out with the assistance of glib lawyers, the party may have told the
electorate that being in power means never having to say you are sorry.
Sunday Pioneer, February 5, 2012
1 comment:
Wonderful post sir, reading this while you are ripping apart Mani Shankar Ayiyar on NDTV! you are so amazing.
Post a Comment