PM's letter to ministers: High on promise, low on hope

Coalition politics has restrained PMs, including Manmohan Singh, from sacking ministers.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's routine annual missive to his ministers to disclose their assets, liabilities and business interests by August 31 comes at a time when corruption - or the lust for illegitimate accumulation of wealth - tops the agenda of national discourse.

Its larger context extends not merely to ministers but also to 800-odd MPs on whom the people have vested the responsibility of making laws, besides ensuring that the government is taken to task for its follies.

At present the non-minister parliamentarians do disclose their assets and liabilities to the Lok Sabha Speaker or the Rajya Sabha chairman every year, but they are under no obligation to declare their business interests.

While there is no logical explanation for the long rope given to the MPs, the possibility of an MP with specific business interests becoming a member of a related standing committee cannot be ruled out.

"This is objectionable. But the system continues because presiding officers of both Houses have not taken the issue seriously. The Speaker can immediately stop this, but no one has been forthcoming," said Kamal Murarka, a businessman who was a minister in the Chandra Shekhar government.


The situation becomes no better even with ministers declaring their business interests. "The onus lies on the Prime Minister alone. Whoever occupies that high office should be in a position to summarily drop a defaulting minister. But coalition dharma has turned out to be a convenient excuse," Murarka explained.

The serious corruption charges being faced by two DMK politicians - A. Raja and Dayanidhi Maran - are cases in point. In the decades after Independence, it would not have been possible for a controversial minister to continue in office for long.

Observers say the situation has totally reversed with ministers now refusing to leave their positions unless it becomes absolutely untenable. The system also provides enough scope for such dilly dallying.

Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a former president of the Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that disclosure of business interests by ministers and parliamentarians would not serve any purpose unless there is a blanket ban.


"There should be no ambiguity about it. An MP, a minister or any other person holding high office should not continue in public life while simultaneously indulging in the creation of wealth. The reason for entering politics is public service," said Chandrasekhar.

When IT czar Nandan Nilekani was appointed chairman of the UID authority in the rank of a minister of state, he continued to own Infosys shares. While Nilekani's integrity is impeccable, it is possible that others in a similar position would exploit the situation to their advantage.

"The best way out for such persons is to vest their interests in a trust and take no benefit out of it till they continue to hold a public office. This should apply also to government officials. But then we are talking of an ideal situation which is, at present, not mandated by the law," Chandrasekhar said.

While the system has its weaknesses, it is compounded by the fact that India does not have a credible law for the confiscation of ill- gotten immovable property and money.

"The first thing that should have happened in the Adarsh housing scam should have been the confiscation of the apartments of those who got them through corrupt means. In the 2G scam too, the licences should have been immediately cancelled.

But these measures come only as a last resort," a politician said.

"I recall a cartoon that appeared in a newspaper several years ago. The politician, who was caught taking a bribe, was shown to be offering a bribe to go scot free. The present day India has not improved from those days. In fact, it has only been a downward journey," he added.