The Rediff Special/Promila Kalhan

'Nothing can be got done in this country without paying a bribe'

Gulzarilal Nanda has just been awarded the Bharat Ratna.

By awarding him its highest civilian honour, the government has finally recognised Nanda's distinguished services to the nation, first as freedom fighter, then as Union minister and twice as interim prime minister.

In an India where a chief minister steps down from office after being charged with graft and then instals his wife in his stead, it is perhaps appropriate to recall Nanda's long crusade against corruption which ended in his ouster as Union home minister.

Fighting corruption in all walks of life and at all levels had been Nanda's fervent desire during the major part of his life. It was perhaps the one passion which marked his character. As home minister in the 1960s he emphasised time and again that he considered eradication of corruption to be a matter of national importance and assured the government's full support and help to central and state officers engaged in this task. He spoke to various sections of the people -- government servants, industrialists, and colleagues among members of Parliament and ministers, everyone he could, to find ways of checking the evil of corruption.

His reasons were sound and all pervading. He said: ''There is a general belief that corruption is rampant and that it affects all levels. It is believed that nothing can be got done in this country without paying a bribe. There is a general compliant of unconscionable delays, the delay being contrived in some cases to compel payment of bribe. Bribery is resorted to in order to get they work done quickly even when what is being asked is something legitimate or proper. This can be remedied by tightening up procedures, simplifying them wherever necessary and by avoiding delays. The government is under obligation to ensure quick, honest and fair disposal of its business. Anxious thought has been given as to how the situation can be remedied..

'A three-way approach has been visualised. The first is setting up of a Central Vigilance Commission charged with the duty of ensuring that complaints of corruption and misconduct and other malpractices are speedily investigated and that offenders are brought to book without fear of favour. The second step is the creation of a Department of Administrative Reforms charged with the duel task of implementing recommendations made in the past by committees and individuals which have not yet received adequate attention. The Administrative Reforms Department will also deal with administrative delays, ascertain the causes of delay and ensure that the procedures are such as leave no room for delays. The third step is the creation of a machinery for redress of grievances.'

It was Nanda's belief that the temptation of corruption originated in social demands -- costly habits, artificial ways of living and the desire for social imitation. Conspicuous consumption and wasteful ways were out of place in this country. Canons of simplicity had, therefore, to be built into the social structure. Leakages of official information, he felt, was a prolific source of corruption. Persons interested in certain matters mainly connected with business and industry tried to obtain information about cases at various stages in the course of a file.

With regard to the bribe-giver he felt that those who attempted to corrupt public servants must also be brought to book. The bribe-giver was as responsible of the offence as the bribe-taker. A clean and efficient administrative machinery, he felt, would lead to substantial economy in administration and development expenditure and our limited resources would go much further in achieving social and economic progress if they were freed from the taint of the sacrifice of public funds and public interest.

Addressing a conference of officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation, special police establishment, besides vigilance officers of various ministries and state anti-corruption organisations in October 1963, Nanda said, 'there might be two opinions as to whether corruption has increased in recent years. We have no precise measures if it is so but there is a feeling in certain quarters that bribery and corruption have now become more widespread and that they have infiltrated into those rungs of the public services in which they were not prevalent in the past.

'Very largely our services are manned by honest persons. The vast majority of our public servants are men of integrity and they perform their duties and functions with fairness, propriety and independence. But the number of those whose conduct is not above reproach is not small either. The evil of corruption has spread its tentacles widely. As government activities extend into new fields, particularly in the sphere of industry, trade and commerce, the need for keeping the public services clean and efficient becomes all the greater.

'Some people in high positions in business and industry have told me that they are compelled to give illegal gratification, otherwise legitimate things are not done and their work suffers. I have assured them that I will do my best to help them if they are harassed because they have refused to give a bribe. Arrangements will have to be made for carrying out this assurance. It would be relevant to mention here the plight of those who complain and give information about cases of corruption. They are immediately faced with a kind of conspiracy to hurt and victimise them. I know several public-spirited persons who have passed on information to the authorities and have suffered on that account.'

The home minister added that no officer about whose integrity there is a reasonable suspicion should be kept in a post which provides opportunities for corruption. An officer whose reputation is in doubt should be warned and a watch should be kept on him. In considering an officer for promotion grant of extension, re-employment: and in deciding whether he should be continued in service after he has attained the age of retirement or has put in thirty years' of service, his integrity must be taken into account.

It was the wide prevalence of corruption which led Nanda to think of ways to help build character. That is why he looked up to saints and sages as well as social workers of a high quality to preserve and nourish the ethical standards and moral values of the community. India being a poor country, the common man had to undergo many privations and austerity. Conspicuous consumption and wasteful ways led to bowing down to temptations and corruption. While undertaking measures to ensure a clean administration, the country was also faced with another problem, namely, the way to deal with corruption in high places, in particular with people in politics.

It was in fact, on June 6, 1962 Lal Bahadur Shastri was home minister, that an announcement was made concerning the setting up of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. Besides Santhanam the committee had five members of Parliament and two senior officers. Its recommendations were unanimous.

Were the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee too drastic? Could they perhaps lead to frivolous charges being made against some ministers? Is that why a strong reaction to the Santhanam Committee's report was that once an allegation against a minister was made, the prime minister and chief minister should first satisfy themselves that the charges were not frivolous?

Bhupesh Gupta, member of the Rajya Sabha, in a letter dated July 10, 1964 to Nanda blamed him for not accepting the report outright. In Bhupesh Gupta's words, 'I should have thought, instead of making the procedure less complicated, dilatory and discouraging, you would improve upon the committee's recommendations in the other direction. You should be satisfied when a complaint is filed against a minister by ten members of Parliament or a state legislature, and the matter should, as the committee suggests be straightaway referred to a committee of national panel...'

But Nanda was a godfearing man and could not allow the floodgates to be opened in the face of some minister who might have been innocent. He was a man given to caution and perhaps quite rightly. Suggestions were made to him that he should not think of dropping the Santhanam Committee's report, but look for a via media. This was acceptable to him. Nanda was not a man given to arrogance. He always tried to put himself in the place of those who could be vainly blamed and hurt.

Nanda, however, was of the view in common with a good many other leaders of public opinion that at the prevailing juncture in India corruption must be curbed. While in individual cases the government had dealt with the problem of corruption at the political level, it was of the highest importance that a proper institutional machinery was set up for the purpose. This alone could carry conviction with the people. However, it was felt that some further safeguards were necessary to protect ministers against baseless allegations.

If it was found on the face of it or after such enquiries as the prime minister or the home minister may have made and found that there was a prima facie case against a minister he could normally be asked to step down. In certain cases this itself could be expected to suffice. If the nature of the case called for further action this could be taken in accordance with the circumstances of the case through a suitable agency. If ten or more MPs made a formal allegation in writing to the prime minister through the Speaker or the chairman, the prime minister should consider himself obliged by convention to have enquiries made into the allegations, provided that the allegations were supported by affidavits sworn by all the signatories.

It was further suggested that the complaining MPs' signatures must be supported by the leaders of their political parties. As a further safeguard to protect the ministers it was suggested that should the complaint be found to be baseless and there was a reasonable inference of notice against a minister the committee of privileges could move the House to remove the complaining MP. Also, while a compliant was being investigated, the complaining MPs should keep the matter to themselves and not give it any publicity.

The Santhanam Committee also stated that ministers against whom allegations were made could as a rule institute legal proceedings by filling a complaint for criminal defamation and they could expect legitimate assistance from the government

Tell us what you think of this extract