Adani saga and the dharma of bureaucracy
QUESTIONS were put to the official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), during his media briefing on November 29, on the indictments issued in the United States against the Adani Group’s chairman and others. The queries focused on (i) whether India was informed about these investigations and its cooperation sought by the US authorities, (ii) if India has now requested evidence so that investigations can take place here (because the alleged crimes were committed in India), (iii) whether India considers the US action as ‘overreach’ and (iv) if the US has requested the Indian mission to serve warrants or summons against persons mentioned in the indictments.
The spokesperson, reading out from prepared notes — not unusual in sensitive matters — stated, “We see this as a legal matter involving private firms and individuals and the Department of Justice. Obviously, there are established procedures and legal avenues in such cases which, we believe, would be followed.” He clarified that the Government of India had not been informed in advance and nor has it had any conversations with the US Government on this issue. In respect to the service of summons, he said, “Any request by a foreign government for service of summons or arrest warrants is part of mutual legal assistance but such requests are examined on merits and we have not received this request from the US side.”
These responses would have been cleared at the highest levels of the political leadership, especially as the matter has stalled Parliament since the beginning of its present session. They were technically correct because the indictments are against private individuals. A government company, the Solar Energy Corporation of India, was in the middle of both the Power Purchase and Supply Agreements, but no shadow has been cast on it. Significantly, the spokesperson did not answer questions raised in the media briefing about India seeking ‘evidence’ or on possible US ‘overreach’.
While in matters such as the Adani indictments there are obvious political angles, they also have diplomatic and bureaucratic underpinnings. Even while politics is taking place, diplomats and bureaucrats have to objectively assess different facets of such issues to ascertain their impact on national interest. Once the indictments became public, what would or should have been the diplomatic and bureaucratic actions by senior civil servants? Government prescriptions on how diplomats and civil servants should handle such issues may change over time, but such changes cannot be substantial; for, the basics of diplomatic and bureaucratic dealing of such matters do not admit a fundamental change.
The indictments cleared by grand juries were two in number. One was filed by the District Attorney of the Eastern District of New York in the Eastern New York District Court for alleged infringement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). District attorneys are appointed by the President and come under the Department of Justice. The other was by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for infringement of its statute. The SEC is an independent body. It would, therefore, not be as easy for an incoming President to influence it as he can the Department of Justice. It is noteworthy that the MEA spokesperson did not mention that the SEC, too, had filed an indictment through a grand jury.
Once the indictments became public, the Indian mission in Washington DC was duty-bound to take cognisance of them. This was because they involved one of India’s leading business conglomerates with a global presence. Hence, judicial action against it by US official institutions would resonate through the US and the global business community, as it has done. There was also the possible impact of the indictments, specifically on other Indian companies which wished to raise capital in the US and generally do business with US companies.
Irrespective of the supposed political connections of a business house, it is the dharma of an Indian diplomatic mission to officially convey such information to the MEA and other ministries concerned in Delhi. While doing so, it has to also give its assessment of its impact on Indian interests. It would be legitimate to ask if the Indian mission took these actions.
Assuming that the Indian mission’s input in this case was received in the MEA, the secretary or secretaries concerned, following official dharma, would bring the matter to the notice of their counterparts in the ministries concerned. (If the mission was silent, it was, and presumably still is, customary to demand that it sends its inputs urgently). In this matter, it would be the New and Renewable Energy, Commerce, Finance and Home Affairs ministries. In addition, the MEA secretary/secretaries would have to keep the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretary informed. While conveying the assessment of the mission, they would have to give their own assessment and its consequences on the country’s interests worldwide.
The point is that even while this issue has been politicised, it is incumbent on the permanent bureaucracy to do its work uninfluenced by the winds and currents of politics. Naturally, under India’s constitutional scheme, the political leadership takes the final decision on all issues for it is accountable to the people through Parliament. But even in the midst of intense politics, the permanent civil service, at its senior-most levels, has to perform its job in keeping with its mandate. If it does not, the national interest suffers.
I confess that when I have mentioned these ideas of the dharma of civil servants belonging to all cadres, I have been told that I am talking of an era that does not exist anymore. If this is true and leading civil servants now take their cue from the political leadership, they have turned away from tradition. Ministers who were civil servants would know this.
The Adani matter is a test case for the civil service. What the current secretaries do may not get to be publicly known. It would, however, be sad if some of the present band of civil service leaders, who have a well-deserved reputation of being straight and true, abandon bureaucracy’s dharma — to convey its unvarnished views to the political leadership.
