Silence shields corruption: Activists

MUMBAI: The silence of the majority plays a big role in the unchecked spiralling of graft. "There are so many honest officers who make a fetish of not even accepting a cup of tea from an interested party," says IAS officer Arun Bhatia.
"Yet, they are silent about the goingson around them." Adds former chief secretary J.B. D''-Souza: "Honest officers tend to live in ivory towers, to shun political contact, to ''place their views on the file'' and then watch them being undone by dishonest seniors or ministers.They seldom use tools like leaks to the media and to opposition politicians. Dishonest officials, on the other hand, develop links with dishonest ministers and thereby become impregnable."
In the absence of any opposition, complaints are squashed at will. Mr Bhatia recalls how the g ove r nment took no action even when he furnished evidence against 107 Pune division talatis who had manipulated land records to help politicians and builders.
Even in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, thousands of cases have been stalled because home ministry sanction is needed to prosecute government servants. "In my five years in the CBI and three years in the ACB, I have seen innumerable cases which never got the go-ahead from the government," says former ACB head A.S. Samra.
Former Maharashtra DGP Arvind Inamdar strongly believes that the concept of government sanction must be challenged or at least put within a time limit.
"Cases drag on for years, and meanwhile those suspended continue to get a so-called subsistence allowance (threefourths of the salary) and government quarters," he says. "Nothing really changes, so why should offenders worry?"
The one factor that could have worried lawbreakers— public indignation—is in woefully short supply. "It''s the legendary Indian tolerance for corruption," says Mr D''Souza.
"Our lengthy administrative and legal procedures have induced in us an apathy to corruption at lower levels. This tolerance quickly expands into an acceptance of far graver dishonesty."
Adds writer Ramchandra Guha: "It''s also because we''ve never seen corruption being punished. Take the Justice Ramaswamy case: there was watertight case against him and he should have been impeached but he was allowed by the Narasimha Rao government to quietly retire. You have to have exemplary punishments if you want to make an impact."
Concerned citizens have often attempted to rouse an apathetic public by floating united fronts against corruption but while some are doing good work, a lot of star-studded ones have sunk because of ego clashes.
"It is imperative that we sink differences for this kind of initiative, since a group is farmore effective than an individual crusader," says Mr Inamdar.
"Individuals often don''t have the wherewithal and expertise, and are unable to tackle a case properly—with the unfortunate result that they end up being ridiculed by the public."
While some point a finger at the media for not doing more in this arena, the the fact is that much good work done by the media has been subsequently undone by governments in naked display of power.
"The only official who helped Justice Lentin in his exposure of the 14-death scandal at Bombay''s JJ Hospital in 1986 was dismissed; no one else suffered," says Mr D''Souza.
Adds Tarun Tejpal, editor of Tehelka, the portal that did a sensational expose of corruption in the defence ministry, "We really suffered after the Tehelka exposures, but don''t allow the frustrations to colour my life. This was just another reminder that we need to be far more vigilant, that our problems are little more difficult than we imagine."
He adds, "Forget Tehelka, look at the Gujarat or anti-Sikh riots. "Our public figures have become the kind of animals who just cannot be shamed anymore. They are brazen about not being held accountable. But in time they will pay the price for being utterly unscrupulous."