Joginder Singh
Much of the present generation of active politicians was born after India became independent, following the sacrifices of many freedom-fighters. In those early years, corruption was a stray creature. When Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister, even a whiff of corruption was enough for anybody, be it a bureaucrat or a politician, to lose his position. After the death of Nehru and his successor Lal Bahadur Shastri, the governance of India passed into the hands of lesser leaders. Such people could not look beyond their coterie of sycophants.
This continues to be the situation even today, especially when it comes to cushy post-retirement jobs, either for politicians or bureaucrats. All that such appointees have to do is please their political masters or masters-to-be. They say goodbye governance and focus on pleasing the boss. Since this writer does not care much for any politician, the only question he has is this: Do our politicians stand by their convictions, or do they prefer to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, or do they just toe the line of their party bosses irrespective national interest?
As Antonio says in William Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart. Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
A former Union Minister for Home Affairs has said that it is possible to hold an “honest opinion” that the Afzal Guru case was “perhaps not correctly decided” and there were “grave doubts about the extent of his involvement” in the Parliament attack. Afzal Guru was hanged on February 9, 2013. The former Home Minister is a lawyer, and if what he says now he also felt at the time of the trial, then he should have issued written orders to drop the case.
Justice PV Reddi, who headed the two-judge Bench which upheld Afzal Guru’s conviction, has said, “The judgement speaks for itself. Those who celebrate Afzal martyrdom day must pick up the judgement and read it thoroughly before making comments or criticism. Fair criticism of Supreme Court judgements is the hallmark of our democratic system that zealously guards the right to free speech. But to term it a judicial hanging is crossing the limit. The criticism must be decent and in public interest. If not, then it could hit at the root of democracy, of which Supreme Court is an important pillar.”
In view of the above observation of the former judge, it appears that India has a great numbers of enemies, within. Indeed, the rot set in right after Nehru – and now a former Home Secretary has spilled the beans on his political master. The latter has, of course, denied any wrongdoing.
The affidavit in the Ishrat Jahan case was changed by the Centre. The UPA Government revised its position that Ishrat Jahan was a member of a Lashkar-e-Tayyeba squad that was moving around the country, and said that there was no evidence to support such a conclusion.
Many petty functionaries, have criticised the retired Union Home Secretary and wondered why he did not say the same things when he was in service. Perhaps, they are not aware that criticism of the Government by a serving bureaucrat is against the law. Besides, what the retired Home Secretary has said is not something new. I myself defied the then Prime Minister in one to one conversation about the principal accused in the fodder scam. I found myself transferred, on my return to India from an Interpol conference.
Many of the so-called VIPs have feet of clay. Loyalty to the country is far from their mind. Once I asked a Minister, why he visits his home State almost every weekend? He frankly confessed that it was because he was elected from that State. He said that his visits to other parts of the country are few.
What I have said above is largely the position of the vast majority of leaders, irrespective of their party. While going through some of my old files, I was shocked to discover the number of committees and panels that have been set up to assist with governance.
The easiest way to pass on the buck of poor governance is to set up committee or a commission. I wonder how long my countrymen will have to suffer corruption? It is said that that, in England, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”, while, in Germany, “Everything which is not allowed is forbidden”. This may be extended to France where, “Everything is allowed even if it is forbidden” and Russia where “Everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed”. In North Korea, it is said that “Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory”.
In India, even if something is allowed, it is forbidden by the rules of multiple Government departments, which undo the work of each other. The heavens would not fall, if all the committees, except the Parliamentary Committees, and at least half of the bureaucratic posts are abolished. Let the Government try out this prescription.
