Politics and business

As the just-concluded Assembly session has indicated, the Punjab Government is still not clear how to deal with politicians doing business, enjoying state patronage and immunity from action for law/rule violations. Hopes were raised when at its very first meeting in March the Punjab Cabinet promised to pass a conflict-of-interest law. It was expected to lay down guidelines for the conduct of business by those holding an elected office. There was, however, a letdown subsequently. First, the proposed law was diluted when MLAs were excluded from its purview. Then no follow-up has happened. There was not a word about it in the recent Assembly session.

Instead, the Punjab government showed indecent hurry in undoing the Supreme Court verdict that had barred liquor vends, hotels and restaurants situated along national and state highways from serving liquor. Since the court verdict had countrywide implications as it had resulted in serious business dislocation and loss of livelihoods, the right course for any of the aggrieved parties was to file a review petition in the Supreme Court. Some states and UTs have redesignated highways to minimise the damage, but Punjab has become the first state in the country to amend an excise law, thereby enabling the affected hotels to regain their liquor business. Whether this has been done for the protection of jobs and revenue or for the benefit of politicians running liquor business is open to debate. But the choice of revenue over accident deaths and disregard for judicial processes reflect poorly on the style of government. 

Local Bodies Minister Navjot Sidhu raised in the Assembly the issue of irregularities by a company which had monopolised the cable business in Punjab during Akali-BJP rule. Hopefully, the promised action would happen and the loss caused to the exchequer, estimated at Rs 500 crore, would be recovered. It may not be easy for the Congress government to break away completely from the shady past practices. It has been found wanting in the Rana Gurjit Singh case. A judicial commission cannot unravel the complicated money trail followed through shell companies. The government cannot be seen as protecting its own while proceeding against those in the opposite camp.