Political Diary

New Delhi, 24 November 2012

Lokpal Minus CBI

KISKA DANDA, KISKI LATHI, KISKI BHAINS?

By Poonam I Kaushish

Tit for tat, is the political flavour this week. A game of dumb charades played out between the Congress’s CAG vs BJP’s CBI. While the former is busy riding the coat-tails of a ex- CAG official’s leak that he was “forced” by his bosses to sign the Rs 1.76 lakh crores 2G scam report when his draft report did not contain any loss figure. The latter voiced its “strong disapproval” of the next CBI Chief’s hasty selection and demanded this be kept in abeyance. It is a moot point: Kiska danda, kiski lathi aur kiski bhains will have have the last word!

True, the CAG’s ex Director General averments have tried to cast aspersions on the CAG’s neutrality and objectivity but it has failed to stir a political hurricane. Many question the retired official’s timing and his delay in not speaking his mind earlier.

On the obverse, the BJP’s ire is understandable given that the Government for reasons best known to it anointed ITBT Chief Ranjit Sinha as CBI Director just hours before the Rajya Sabha’s Select Committee on the Lokpal report was tabled in the House Friday.

Pertinently, the report among other suggestions, unanimously recommended, “The CBI Director will be appointed by a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of India.

Clearly, the Government needs to come clean as the present CBI Chief AP Singh retires on 30 November. Surely, he could have been given an extension till the Committee’s recommendations are incorporated in the Lokpal Bill, passed by Parliament and the collegium select his successor.

Questionably, was it to pre-empt the possibility of the Opposition vetoing Sinha’s appointment just as the BJP had done vis-à-vis former Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner? Logically, The CBI Director stays in office for two years. If he is close to the Government, then the agency becomes open to political manipulations and settling scores with rivals.

Worse, the CBI seems to have adopted a brazenly opportunistic policy of playing safe with Governments of the day and its willingness to go along with its political mai-baaps "shoot and scoot" corruption charges designed to mar reputations only which are rarely brought to closure. See how the Bofors scam, a pittance in today’s mind-boggling crores scam,  was scuttled. At the end no body was any wiser where the Rs 64 crores went. Never Mind it cost the late Rajiv Gandhi his Prime Ministership.

Why has the CBI’s credibility suffered so greatly? Simply, because successive Governments have used it as a hand maiden to dance to its tune. A toothless tiger to help friends settle scores with opponents. Thereby, raising serious doubts about its honesty and integrity of purpose to weed out the corrupt. Consequently, the system becomes self-perpetuating whereby a threatened political elite have given more and more powers to the CBI to get their way and have their say. 

Think. The handicap that a shackled CBI operates under is sharply reflected in the cases against RJD’s Lalu Yadav (chara ghotala), disproportionate assets cases against two ex-UP Chief Ministers Mayawati and Mulayam. In fact, see how both the BJP and Congress kept Mayawati’s “file pending” for political benefit.

In 1996 the CBI registered a case against Lalu Yadav and filed a chargesheet in March 2003, but put it in cold storage after UPA-I took office in May 2004. It was only last March the CBI court finally framed charges against Lalu after the Supreme Court stepped in. 

NDA Prime Minister Vajpayee not only retained the CBI under his charge but also replaced the agency’s Chief hurriedly as he was vigorously pursuing cases against powerful politicians close to the Saffron Sangh and his allies including AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha.

Does Mulayam Singh have assets disproportionate to his income? This question swings across the Yes and No pendulum depending on whether the Government of the day needs his “services” and how badly.  Recall in March 2007, a case was registered alleging the Samajwadi supremo had assets worth hundreds of crores. Next year, the case took a U-turn when the Left withdrew support and Mulayam bailed out UPA I in the confidence vote on the nuclear deal.

In 2009 the then Union Law Minister now Karnataka Governor Bhardwaj said “CBI has targeted Mulayam and tried to fix him. I told them that the case should be objectively re-examined.” But as soon as the Cong-SP relationship turned cold over seat-sharing in Uttar Pradesh in 2009 poll, the CBI once again turned pro-active. It informed the Supreme Court that it still “stands by its recommendations” of 2007 read DA case.

Ditto the blow-hot-blow-cold treatment meted out to BSP’s Bhenji Mayawati in her disproportionate asset case.  Contrast this long hiatus with the alacrity with which the CBI acts against ordinary citizens. 

Importantly, in a tell-all former CBI Joint Director Lall in his book Who Owns CBI: The Naked Truth, has detailed how the Jain hawala case probe was scuttled. According to him, S K Jain, during his interrogation, had claimed that hawala money, --- over Rs 1,000 crore --- was linked to kickbacks paid to politicians and bureaucrats from various projects. There examination could provide evidence on bunglings, but this was abandoned on grounds that this aspect was not a part of Jain diaries investigated by the CBI!

The black-marks against it are many: investigations are below average; it doesn’t recover much loot and its legal arm is nothing to write home about. Also, most cases are built on incomplete documents, unavailable witnesses and inability to pursue leads overseas, which slows the process. More often than not, it finds itself being reprimanded by the courts for not moving quickly enough.

However as the eye-popping scams become public thanks to a vigilant CAG RTI law, civil society and electronic media, a Government controlled CBI does more disservice to its political masters than good. Resulting in the cacophony of tarnishing the entire political class per se as sab chor hai, notwithstanding those clean. 

It is absurd to say that the CBI cannot deliver. Of course, it can as shown by the nailing of Raja, Kanimozhi and Kalmadi. The way forward is to make the agency independent and autonomous. Whereby, the CBI alone has the power to decide if it should appeal any case. Also, the agency must have its own cadre of officials who should carry no political baggage. But this requires clear and firm political will. India needs a sleek CBI that acts without favours and prejudice.

In sum, our leaders must desist from playing further havoc and converting the CBI into a “Central Bureau of convenience, connivance and corruption. At the end the day, are we going to mortgage our conscience to corrupt and tainted leaders? Remember, democracy is not competition in Constitutional indecency and impropriety. It remains to be seen if the law will catch up with our polity and prove to be their nemesis? ----- INFA 

(Copyright, India News and  Feature Alliance)