The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Shunglu panel’s findings
Corruption, favouritism all the way

AFTER indicting Delhi’s Lt-Governor Tejender Khanna and Chief Minister Sheila Dixit for huge losses and delays in infrastructure projects for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, the V.K. Shunglu committee in its final report has castigated the role of Suresh Kalmadi in the harshest possible terms, holding him responsible for most of the mess.

The former chairman of the Organising Committee (OC) has been accused of making “material changes” in official documents to get the post and also to have administrative control over it. Once he got the coveted post, he ran the OC “like a club” in which the criteria for recruitment and promotion seemed to have been “who knows who” rather than merit. Even the attempts of the Ministry of Sports to open a dialogue with Kalmadi between November 2003 and September 2004 on the action to be taken for the CWG were unsuccessful because Kalmadi was unwilling to do so till he was assured of chairmanship. The result? Work was nowhere near completion even on the eve of the Games.

The report points out that there was no internal accountability framework for the OC chairman, as he could not be called to question in any governance forum in the OC, like the executive board or the general body, which were not independent enough to play this role since these institutions were effectively controlled by the chairman. No wonder Kalmadi himself brought in individuals as employees and consultants from his constituency in Pune, even when better talent was available elsewhere.

With such people at the helm, things were bound to go horribly wrong and they did. The then IOC secretary general Randhir Singh and president Kalmadi had themselves said in a letter to the Ministry of Sports in 2003 that the Games would cost Rs 300 crore to Rs 400 crore. But a staggering Rs 28,000 crore was spent, which the report aptly describes as a “galactic jump. Everyone, be it the Sports Authority of India or the CPWD, squandered money. The committee report would serve a useful purpose only if all those found guilty are served their just desserts and a mechanism is found to ensure that there is no repetition of the mega-scandal.

Sale of weapons
Guilty Army officers must be punished

The ultimate and most powerful instrument of any state is its military. It is, therefore, vital that the officer cadre in particular and the ranks they command are men and women of character and integrity. But what happens when some members of this force entrusted with the country’s security engage in acts of impropriety?

In a shocking revelation, Army officers, including even a major general, along with soldiers have been found selling for profit in the black market prohibited weapons originally given to them at concessional rates for private use. Taking cognisance of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court has expressed shock and surprise at the illegal sale of a large number of prohibited weapons by Army officers to around 800 persons, including terrorists and criminals, in connivance with civil servants. As if this is not grave enough, both the Army and the Ministry of Defence have been criticised for impeding both inquiry and disciplinary action. Expressing outrage, the Supreme Court has understandably observed that this racket has occurred in “of all the places in the armed forces where utmost discipline is required”. In Rajasthan, three officers from the IAS and five from the Rajasthan Administrative Service are facing an enquiry for their alleged involvement in issuing arms licenses. If the PIL is to be believed, then the problem could be on a much larger scale since the Army is currently investigating about 40 officers in the Western Command. The figure of Army officers involved could be far higher if all seven commands – six operational and one training — are taken into account.

Such acts of impropriety cannot and must not be allowed. Both the Army and the Ministry of Defence must view this issue with the seriousness that it deserves and take all measures to bring the culprits to book. Service officers must not be allowed to misuse their privileges. This goes against the very ethos of the military and it is something that the country can ill afford.

Thought for the Day

Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. The human mind is our fundamental resource. — John F. Kennedy

ARTICLE

India’s core interests in S. Asia
Foreign policy must reflect the reality
by Zorawar Daulet Singh

The recent fad in Western security commentary on India has sought to portray this country as a natural member of East Asian political life. The impetus for this narrative began last November with the US administration’s public endorsement that India was an East Asian power with President Obama urging India’s lawmakers to “not only ‘look East’ but also ‘engage East’”. More recently, American diplomats have prodded India to a “Be East” policy, reflecting perhaps impatience with the pace of India’s Pacific rendezvous.

India, in fact, began to look east in the early 1990s, much before Washington’s courting began. And simply because the West is now encouraging this, doesn’t mean that India should do the opposite. What India’s political and strategic community should, however, debate is a geostrategy that is consistent with the geopolitical context of South Asia.

It can be argued that by diverting India’s geostrategic attention eastwards, Washington is attempting to re-orient Indian threat perceptions away from Pakistan. And it is not difficult to discern why. India’s strategic bifurcation away from the subcontinent would enable Washington to maintain its preferred South Asia policy of increasing investments in both India and Pakistan without their bilateral contradictions complicating US regional strategy. This is something that recurred throughout the Cold War, and continues to be a potential nuisance to the US.

Now, China is undoubtedly both a regional challenge and a geostrategic threat to Indian security, and most analysts would find US prodding on India’s “East Asia” credentials an opportunity that should be leveraged both to enhance Indian influence and perhaps even increase its bargaining leverage vis-à-vis China.

But it is arguably not an overriding factor that should compel India to abandon its multivector worldview, which seeks to expand Indian influence in West Asia, South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean littoral states. Plainly put, by looking eastwards, the reality of Pakistan will not disappear. Moreover, by exclusively and openly focusing on a future Chinese threat, India would merely invite a larger deployment of Chinese offensive forces in Tibet, requiring an Indian counter-response and thus producing an offence-defence dynamic that could hardly enhance Indian security. It would presumably also give the Pakistani military a window of opportunity to rehabilitate itself and maintain its position as a regional balancer, ironically a situation that would favour China.

In fact, a threat-based assessment goes against the very grain of strategic discourse in security establishments today. The mantra of capability-based military modernisation is now the preference for most aspiring powers, including India, in a post-Cold War era where the dissolution of entrenched ideological and material conflicts are reducing the salience of the notion of permanent threats. What does this essentially mean? A focus on capabilities rather than threats is advantageous because threats may be transient and continue to assume different avatars, and a grand strategy or military modernisation programme that tailors itself exclusively to preconceived threats will usually find itself behind the curve. In contrast, focusing on capabilities will offer more flexibility to re-divert or re-deploy national instruments toward dynamic threat contingencies.

To be sure, capabilities are not acquired in a vacuum. Capabilities require a context and a reference point if they are to be acquired and developed efficiently. This context is derived from a nation-state’s self-image of its place in international life, the geopolitical location of the state, the material and military attributes of its peers, and the desired zone of influence.

Returning to the contemporary flux in India’s political and security posture, what geostrategic orientation must India assume to channel its grand strategic agenda? India’s potential and aspiration to be a pole in the international system coupled with the complex geopolitical reality that includes at least two uncooperative and allied states on its periphery implies that it would be imprudent to focus on Pacific China as an exclusive symbol of India’s rise. India’s core interests are in South Asia and it is continental China rather than naval China that remains a priority, and it is the balance of power on the Himalayan frontiers that India must seek foremost to improve. And insofar as the regional challenge of unchecked Chinese power to Indian influence is concerned, that can only be effectively dealt with by a policy of internal balancing or building India’s domestic capabilities. Improving governance, logistical connectivity across the subcontinent and adopting an economic model that produces true pan-Indian development complemented by a more astute and nimble regional policy will keep Chinese power at bay.

On the broader Asian arena, India recognises the challenge that surrounds China’s rise and is keen to participate in diverse bilateral and multilateral initiatives that can both serve as a hedge against a more assertive China and advance the search for a stable and plural multipolar equilibrium. The track-1 US-India dialogue on East Asia, of which a couple of rounds have already been concluded, is but one manifestation of such a multivector approach.

India’s abiding belief that a bloc-based system usually produces lesser security for all implies that India’s vision for Asian security is broader than that of the status quo actors in East Asia and the Western Pacific. It is perhaps instructive to note that India’s National Security Adviser (NSA) Shiv Shankar Menon recently remarked that an Asian security system “should be plural. No one-size solution or simplistic prescription will work. We should learn from the failure of Cold War alliance systems in the area, and of earlier Asian Collective Security proposals”. The NSA further argued that a new Asian order must include “the entire Eurasian landmass” from the “Suez to the Pacific”.

The underlying logic for such an open security system is underscored by the global political economy. The economic interdependence within Asia, especially in East Asia, and the complex web of extra-regional trade and investment linkages that connect Asia to Western economies only underscore the preference for an open economic and security system. US-China economic interdependence, for all the recent bluster, has merely been dented. The geoeconomic linkages between the West and China continue to be deep, profitable and include the participation of a multitude of state and corporate actors from across East Asia India’s perfunctory contribution to this division of labour is the true failure of India’s Look East policy.

So yes, look East, but don’t stop looking behind your shoulder too. This would produce a manageable relationship with China and its neighbours without compromising India’s strategic flexibility and options in West Asia, and especially when that region is primed to witness tumultuous change in the coming years.

India’s geopolitical location makes it a Eurasian power, and India’s foreign policy must reflect that.

The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Alternatives, New Delhi.

MIDDLE

A theme wedding
by V.K. Kapoor

THE wedding venue wore the look of an oasis in a desert. Horses, camels and palm trees added to the ambience. Close relations were dressed as sheiks, and women were trying to look like Mughal begums.

The main challenge facing wealthy people is displaying. At one time, they did it by “conspicuous leisure” — not working. Now it is “conspicuous consumption” — spending a lot. People use possessions to define their place in society. Self in a market-based society is treated as a commodity whose value is determined externally. Every function is a social strategy with a specific aim.

The guests included the political, social and bureaucratic elite of Delhi. The host had money, influence and access. The hostess was a childlike adult with too much money itching for risk and sensory overload. There was a flood of expensive liquor being served by well-endowed girls dressed in Arabian costumes.

A netaji entered. The hostess hurried towards him and they embraced each other warmly. Her gestures were hotter than a frying pan. Netaji was known for his roving eye and called a ‘Master Blaster’ in political circles. He had extensive contacts in the film industry, and had inducted same stars in the party.

A lady from the corporate world was drawing favour-seekers galore. A large number of senior bureaucrats were hovering around her. She had got jobs for some bureaucrats after retirement.

I saw a former minister standing alone nursing his drink. I walked up to him and greeted him. He very bitterly pointed to a man saying that he was his old ‘chamcha’ and was now avoiding him. I told him that a ‘chamcha’ needs a plate, and moves to another plate which is full. He laughed sheepishly.

An old socialite who had become a ‘sannyasin’ came with her husband. She was carrying a string of beads in her hand. She had a colourful past. She reminded me of an old Sanskrit proverb “Vridha Nari Pati Vrata” (An old woman becomes loyal to her husband). Her husband had the look of a kicked spaniel.

There was a ‘liaison man’ who was briskly meeting everybody and anybody. He was a permanent fixture in the Delhi golf club. He knew everybody who was worth knowing. The art of fixing has evolved into a science of building, nurturing and maintaining relationships. It is he whom you know that determines your strength.

People were drinking with gay abandon. Indian middle class has come of age. It is a time of tall men and short character, steep profits and shallow relationships. Taller buildings and shorter tempers. We buy more and enjoy less. There is a quantum jump in adultery and adulteration.

OPED GOVERNANCE

Panchayati Raj: A God that failed
Raj Kumar Siwach

Sarpanches taking oath of office at a function in Kurukshetra. A Tribune photo

The democratic edifice of India is built by 239544 panchayats represented by 2828779 elected representatives. This constitutional arrangement becomes more complex when we add more conventional institutions, formal and informal, like the khap panchayats in Haryana, pani panchayats in Orissa, vana panchayats in Uttarakhand, caste panchayats in Karnataka, Gavki in Maharashtra and Oor in Tamil Nadu.

All these constitutional and conventional panchayats deal with economic development, social justice, dispute settlement, rural development and social welfare services. A question may arise in this context: have these multiple agencies been working in tandem or encroaching upon each other’s domain? There are conflicts and contradictions in the domain of self-governing institutions when they distribute the slice of the cake to the villagers. For these reasons, they are also called as self-aggrandised governments.

Sadly, the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) have not been successful in inculcating political consciousness among the people. The reasons are not far to seek: financial constraints, lackadaisical bureaucracy, rampant corruption and politicians’ insensitivity.

Echoing his concern, Dr George Mathew, Director, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, lamented that though over three million men and women are elected to the PRIs, they have no idea about their rights and responsibilities. Unless political bodies at all levels including the MPs, the MLAs and government officials take a positive stand, the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act will remain on paper.

The PRIs in India, barring a few exceptions, are growing in size and scale but without the roots. What we witness today is a miasma of cynicism, disillusionment and disappointment. The founding fathers’ intentions are marred by gory killings for gotra, election boycotts in the fear of losing the caste hegemony, auctioning for panchayat positions, violence and pressure to prevent capable candidates from contesting elections for the reserved seats, gross financial irregularities, fraud, corruption, misuse of funds and so on.

This is due largely to a crisis of ethos and culture. The dynamic, honest and committed youths keep off the rural leadership. On seeing this vacuum, leaders capture the helm of affairs whose conduct reflects covetousness, not commitment; avariciousness, not temperance; and collusion with landlords and politicians, not cogitation for genuine empowerment. The rural youths prefer to migrate to cities in search of jobs or reluctantly feast on agricultural income which works as disguised unemployment.

Because of compelling circumstances, they elect representatives as Hobson's choice. These representatives too run around politicians and officials for funds and services in the rural areas. Thus, public interest takes a back seat. Elections will serve little purpose unless people are endowed with resources and authority to steer the machinery of governance.

Over the years, the Centre and the states have set up numerous committees and commissions. These have made recommendations for institutional and procedural reforms. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its report on local governance, has considered the core principles of local governance reform. These include subsidiarity, devolution, capacity building, citizen-centricity and accountability. This reform package presents two contradictory viewpoints. One, the policymakers wish to devolve more powers to the PRIs in the name of citizen-centricity (examples: community policing, maintaining public order and resolving local disputes). And two, they have become platforms to perpetuate exploitation and injustice meted out to weaker sections. Both paradoxical roles (anticipated and discharged) are products of two ideological strands and present the superstructure of the PRIs without a structure or base. This implies that the ethical soil propitious for the success of grassroots institutions is yet to be levelled.

The ground reality has not changed much in terms of economic development empowerment and social justice. In other words, there is neither raj nor panchayats with autonomy and independence. These elected representatives of village republics are losing credibility and people’s trust. Their sense of fairness, justice and equity has also become questionable. The cultural terrain of the PRIs, which hitherto neglected all reform measures, needs a second look.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, while speaking on “development with freedom” makes a case for the revival of our old cultural values of good governance. The values enshrined in social capital and signifying trust, cooperation, faith, impartiality and justice at the community level need to be reincarnated if India should become a super power.

Cultural renaissance is the need of the hour. The evidence of such governance culture is vividly seen in the practices and traditions of diverse faiths, sects, religions and philosophies of Indian ruling elites. In addition to devolving funds, functions and functionaries to the PRIs, there is a need to awaken people and free villages from the iniquitous system of poverty, squalor, injustice, factionalism and suspicions between neighbors sharing common streets and fields.

The root cause of the country’s present ills is the culture of misgovernance. And this can be effectively tackled if the Gram Sabhas and Mohalla Committees are rejuvenated by involving people.

The current debate on corruption reminds one of Plato’s utterances. Plato was hostile to democracy because the people lacked expertise and enlightenment to understand governance. Robert M. MacIver calls this situation as “aristocratic fallacy” wherein both the rulers and the ruled are incompetent. The people select a good physician and an able lawyer but not a good representative. Competence and wisdom in governance are rare phenomena.

The Gram Sabha is the place where the first brick of our democratic edifice lies but it remains unnoticed. The potential and power of the people, if tapped properly, can transform the lives of masses in rural areas. Consider three success stories: Odenthurai near Coimbatore for generating environmental-friendly power; Michael Pattinam in Tamil Nadu for rainwater harvesting; and Hivre Bazar near Ahmednagar for environmental preservation, development and communal harmony.

The cumulative effect of these experiments has shown that the Gram Sabha is the gateway to democracy. Today, however, what we witness is the Sarpanch Raj where no effective meetings of Gram Sabhas are convened to assess the performance of Gram Panchayats. And even if these are convened, there is poor attendance.

The Gram Sabhas can act as watchdogs of a committed and accountable democracy. They can supervise and monitor the functioning of the village panchayats and government functionaries. They can also examine the annual statements of accounts and audit reports of the Gram Panchayats prepared for implementing the rural development schemes. Their success varies from state to state. In states like Kerala, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, they are more active and functional but in states like Bihar, they are merely ceremonial bodies.

There is an urgent need to ensure cent per cent attendance in the Gram Sabha meetings. An effective campaign involving the media, students, NGOs, mahila mandals, schools, colleges and NCC will help ensure this.

For efficient resource mobilisation, organic linkages between panchayats, line departments of the state government and the Gram Sabhas have to be evolved. They need experts in micro-level planning in such areas as building community assets, social welfare, social justice, environmental conservation and rural development.

In most states, the Gram Sabhas are only advisory bodies. They should be made the sanctioning authority for taking up any developmental programme at the village level.

The Gram Sabhas should meet at least for four times a year. Maximum decentralisation and transparency will ensure accountability and reduce corruption. The list of beneficiaries, muster rolls, bills, vouchers, accounts, applications for licenses and permits should all be tabled, examined and approved by the Gram Sabhas. If the people are dissatisfied with their representatives, the Gram Sabhas should be endowed with the right of recall.

The Gram Sabhas should be empowered to penalise local bureaucracy for dereliction, embezzlement and fraud. These can provide a direct link between the service providers and service recipients by shortening the long chain of accountability under which crooked civil servants manage to escape punitive action on account of legal plumbing.

The writer is Reader, Department of Public Administration, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana

Overdue reforms

l The Panchayati Raj institutions (PRIs) hold the key to good governance. Over 70 per cent of India’s population continues to live in the villages and 60 per cent of the nation’s workforce draws its sustenance from agriculture and related activities. This sums up the importance of PRIs.

l The states should re-examine the Gram Panchayat delimitation for greater efficiency in the delivery of services. When small villages are clustered, gains can be expected, but the trade-off could be in terms of larger Gram Sabhas.

l The people’s participation is inversely proportional to the Gram Sabha’s size. Many Gram Panchayats are too small to function as autonomous institutions of local government. To be an economically viable administrative unit, a Gram Panchayat must have a minimum population size.

l When Gram Panchayats are large as in Kerala, West Bengal, Bihar and Assam, states should constitute ward sabhas which will exercise in such panchayats powers and functions of the Gram Sabha and of the Gram Panchayat as may be entrusted to them.

l Panchayats should have their own staff. They should have full powers with regard to recruitment and service conditions of their employees within a broad framework of state laws and certain standards.

l The state governments should not have the power to suspend or rescind any resolution passed by the PRIs or take action against the elected representatives on the ground of abuse of office, corruption, etc. or to supersede/ dissolve the panchayats.

l In all such cases, the powers to investigate and recommend action should lie with the local Ombudsman who will send his report through the Lok Ayukta to the Governor.