Commentary: 'Could Spot Fixing Be Our Trojan Horse?'

By Shankar Jaganathan (Guest Writer) 

Corruption in India has attained humongous proportions despite continual but largely erratic movements since independence to tackle this menace. This Writer ponders on whether the recent betting scandal in cricket could catalyse an effective outcome in the fight against political corruption. 

Spot fixing in cricket, sexual harassment in the political and corporate world, doctored investigation reports in politics and lucrative jobs sold for money are some of the recently leveled allegations against various individuals and institutions that are making headlines.

World Bank generous to a fault

By Bea Edwards

The International Development Association (IDA), the arm of the World Bank that makes grants and interest-free, long-term loans to poor countries around the world, lacks effective safeguards against corruption, according to a report by the bank's own Independent Evaluation Group (IEG).

The damning report concluded that IDA, which lends and grants about US$10 billion annually to governments in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, doesn't protect its funds adequately from theft and diversion.

This report couldn't come at a more awkward time. The Group of 20 countries meeting in London in early April called on the World Bank to step up its lending to cope with the global economic crisis, and the acceleration has already begun. With such streamlining of loan and grant approval, there's an even greater chance of corruption escaping detection.

The IEG report was released with little fanfare in mid-April, buried in the World Bank website. The crucial section about failure on anti-corruption measures was buried deeper still in Volume II, Annex D [1].

Material weakness
The document revealed that the lack of safeguards at IDA rises to the level of a "material weakness", the most serious of financial accounting failings. The finding, reached by the IEG together with an international advisory panel that included independent auditors from Australia, Norway and India, was released to the public only after a pitched and protracted battle with the bank's management, which fought mightily to avoid disclosure.

Still, the facts of the matter were clear: after 13 years of rhetoric deploring fraud and corruption, the World Bank's management hasn't even minimally equipped its staff to protect IDA funds. For example, according to the IEG review: the Country Assistance Strategy (the bank's three-year business plan for each nation in which it sets priorities) and strategy papers on priorities for economic sectors "have not systematically and seriously addressed fraud and corruption risk at the country level".

Moreover, most of the bank's anti-corruption efforts have been confined to high-level speeches and analytical studies. James Wolfensohn, the World Bank's president from 1995 to 2005, kicked off the campaign with his "Cancer of Corruption" speech in 1996. Paul Wolfowitz, the next president, followed suit, announcing a "three-pronged plan" to achieve five objectives in the fight against corruption.

To date, according to the IEG review, project designs don't address the risk of fraud, nor do guidelines for project supervision, financial management or procurement. And although the bank's lending to bridge the gaps in national budgets requires assessments of fraud and corruption, real safeguards are lacking. In other words, there's a program on paper but very little in practice.

Vietnam and India
Since its establishment in 1960, IDA's loans and grants have totaled over $193 billion, and indications are that the global financial crisis will provide a rationale for increasing annual lending. During the bank's last fiscal year, Vietnam and India were the two top beneficiaries of IDA funds: Vietnam borrowed nearly $1.2 billion and India received over $800 million, although both countries had been previously assessed in separate reviews as running projects with a high probability of corruption.

The World Bank assessed India's health care projects for corruption risk in 2006 and found that five of five projects were spectacularly vulnerable to fraud. In a "Detailed Implementation Review" (DIR) (a World Bank process for assessing fraud and corruption), the bank found:

- Procurement deficiencies, including collusion, bid rigging, bribery and manipulation of records;
- Implementation deficiencies, such as deficient work certified as complete, broken, damaged equipment certified as compliant, under-delivery of services;
- Oversight deficiencies, including inadequate financial, audit and internal controls both by GOI [Government of India] and [the] bank.

A similar review of two of Vietnam's infrastructure projects found "a proliferation of indicators of collusion, fraud, misrepresentation and preferential treatment in the procurement and award of contracts. The DIR also found vulnerabilities to irregularities in the projects' financial management activities and control environment. Lastly, a large number of the project sites visited by the DIR team showed design and construction irregularities in works."

In the wake of these reports, India's Ministry of Health, the counterpart of the projects identified with a high likelihood of corruption, received another $521 million credit, while the bank's board of directors approved an additional $322 million for infrastructure and roads projects in Vietnam.

Typically, the bank's management reacts to findings of shortcomings and ineffectiveness in ways designed to obscure the message. In this case, the communications team developed a hair-splitting explanation that conveys the wrong impression unless read carefully.

After it released the Vietnam corruption report, Martin Rama, the bank's acting director in Hanoi, told a news conference: "The DIR found no evidence supporting allegations of fraud and corruption against the PMU (Project Management Unit) 18 officials." In a strict sense, the statement is true, but the fact is that the DIR found no such evidence because it is not designed to look for any. As the bank's website explains: "A DIR assesses the likelihood of fraud, corruption and mismanagement in bank-financed projects" while "An investigation determines whether an allegation is substantiated, unsubstantiated or unfounded." In other words, the DIR only makes the allegations; in order to find evidence supporting them, the bank would have had to follow up with an investigation.

In the Indian case, both the government of India and bank management attacked those who carried out the DIR as well as their message, claiming, among other things, that one internationally recognized reviewer was incompetent and mistaken and that irregularities identified had already been addressed when they had not.

Aftermath
In short, the depth and breadth of the accountability weaknesses exposed at IDA are alarming.

Yet, the bank's management claimed that the accountability flaws the report about IDA flagged are now being addressed on three fronts. First, the recommendations of the Volcker Panel [under former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker], which reviewed the performance of the bank's investigative unit in 2007, have been implemented. Second, the bank's board approved a whistleblower protection policy in June, 2008. Finally, implementation of the Governance and Anti-Corruption Strategy (GAC) began in January 2008 and has been progressively integrated into lending and projects.

None of these claims, however, withstands scrutiny. The Volcker Panel, for example, insisted that corruption be effectively addressed through a "fully coordinated approach across the entire World Bank Group, ending past ambivalence about the importance of combating corruption." Yet the IEG report itself shows that this is precisely what management has not done:

- Basic project and lending documents don't include a requirement to assess the risks of fraud and corruption;
- Safeguards against corruption don't exist for budget support loans, perhaps the most vulnerable of IDA funds;
- Staff members haven't been adequately trained to recognize signs of corruption in projects; performance appraisals include incentives to report corruption;
- Management routinely fails to take timely action to follow up on audit, investigatory, and evaluation findings of impropriety.

Nor is the whistleblower protection policy effective. Would-be whistleblowers informed IEG that they fear they are risking their careers at the bank if they report fraud. Further, staff members in the Department of Institutional Integrity (INT), the unit specifically responsible for investigating corruption, reported more than the staff of any other unit that: "[S]eeking out [fraud and corruption] issues in projects and reporting on observed improprieties may lead to reprisals from their managers, and managerial signals and behavior are not always consistent with these messages. Overall, mixed messages and ambivalence are still considered prevalent."

Further, a close reading of the whistleblower policy shows that it incorporates coverage loopholes, unrealistic caps on compensation for vindicated whistleblowers, and unjustifiable reporting restrictions. As a result, nearly one year after the board approved the protection policy, there are virtually no whistleblower cases under investigation at the bank, despite reports of both widespread corruption and retaliation.

The third World Bank effort mentioned prominently in the IEG report as providing future protection for IDA funds is the Governance and Anti-Corruption Strategy (GAC). But the GAC's own implementation report, released in December 2008, revealed that management lacked an institutional commitment to the strategy: "Senior Bank leadership should overcome current problems within the Bank of ad hoc responses and ambivalence about the GAC mission ... with clear statements about institutional and individual responsibility and accountability." The implementation report concluded that the GAC strategy was not integrated effectively into bank operations.

Who can you call?
Although the IEG didn't signal it, an additional procedural weakness makes IDA funds, and in fact all bank funds, vulnerable to corruption. Criminal conduct, such as theft, bribery and fraud, isn't prosecutable by the bank. INT investigates criminal allegations for the purpose of debarring corrupt firms or individuals from future bank work. The likelihood of recovering funds is extremely remote, and national authorities are dependent on information from the World Bank and from INT if they are to prosecute.

Recent allegations of criminal misconduct involving bank funds indicate that the bank has no uniform procedures for referring cases to national authorities. If such procedures do exist, bank management is unwilling to divulge them and the public has no right to information about them.

In effect, then, IDA funds are vulnerable to fraud and corruption from all directions. First, safeguards aren't in place at either the country or the project level. IDA funds aren't protected with preventive measures that systematically flag signs of improprieties.

Next, bank staff members working on vulnerable projects are intimidated and hesitant to allege fraud and corruption even when they suspect it. If project staff simply keep the disbursements moving, there are no questions asked. If they slow or suspend disbursements when suspicions of corruption arise, they must respond to an avalanche of paperwork and pressure.

Third, investigators, when alerted to possible wrongdoing, are reluctant to find it for fear of reprisal. Finally, the bank doesn't appear to cooperate systematically with national law enforcement agencies.

The IEG has made it clear that the bank isn't equipped to ensure that its billions in IDA aid don't wind up in the wrong bank accounts. After more than a decade of posturing and preaching about the corrosive effect of corruption on development, bank management should focus on the practicalities of actually addressing it.

Moving forward
To begin, there are clear, low-cost and no-cost steps that management could take:

- Build anti-corruption safeguards into project design, supervision, and procurement;
- Train project staff to recognize signs of corruption in bank projects;
- Protect whistleblowers from reprisal when they come forward and discipline retaliators;

Ensure that investigators, particularly, are shielded from retaliation when they pursue allegations of fraud and that they are empowered to cooperate with their national counterparts when criminal investigations are warranted.

But the World Bank's management doesn't need outside advice on how to handle corruption. Managers there know much more about it than almost anyone else. And, in most cases, bid-rigging, collusion, and bribery aren't that hard to spot.

The real problem at the bank is a failure of will at the top. The Government Accountability Project (where I work), for example, found that Wolfensohn, while flogging anti-corruption measures on the one hand, silenced staff members who tried to warn investors that an international criminal was hijacking a privatization scheme in Azerbaijan.

And Wolfowitz, while touring Africa preaching anti-corruption, was feathering his girlfriend's nest and quietly suppressing an INT report that showed Joseph Kabila, president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, allowing his girlfriend to feather hers with the World Bank's money. Not incidentally, the funds she took were intended to finance airlifts to transfer Congolese children from war zones.

The bank has been very adept at promoting the impression that corruption is a problem now being addressed. This is, quite simply, not the case. Fundamentally, nothing has changed since the talk began. Bureaucratic layers of "review" have been added and the speeches continue. There are implementation strategies and disclosure consultations. But there isn't any discipline, no real deterrent, and no penalty for criminal conduct. Even more notable, for the most part, the IEG report exposing this has gotten very little attention from those who could do something about it.

Focus: An Increase In MPs' Salaries Will Be Gift From India!

By Kartik Trivedi in Boston

Higher wages do not deter corruption, as is evident from the Enron and Satyam frauds. By how much would we have to raise salaries to deter a 2G-scale scam and most deadliest Vyapm scam to name a few?

"If we want India’s brightest to take to politics, we had better pay them well", Akshat Khandelwal committee has justified a proposal to increase the salaries of parliamentarians. His argument sounds logical on the surface but contains some deep-seated flaws.

PRIVATE SECTOR IS NEW FOUNTAIN HEAD OF CORRUPTION

By M H Ahssan / Hyderabad

Mention the word “corruption” and images of sleazy netas and babus are conjured up in the popular imagination. Corruption is typically associated with politicians and bureaucrats who run government organisations, spearheaded by individuals who abuse their discretionary powers to enrich themselves at the expense of the public at large.

But at least two studies that recently entered the public domain indicate that corruption in the Indian private sector has come of age. This is what has been highlighted in two reports prepared under the aegis of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) – interestingly, this particular UN agency deals with corporate corruption. These reports were prepared despite the non-cooperation of representatives of private firms.

Curious Case of Kejriwal: Passion, Promise And Irrelevance

By Likha Veer | INNLIVE

CLOSE LOOK It all began with a genuine passion followed by a promise of alternative politics of delivery with integrity, but ambition may have already turned it irrelevant. At this critical moment in India’s life, in spite of, apparently, his best intentions, Kejriwal may end up damaging national interests by playing into the hands of those who prefer India to be perpetually in the protest mode. It is time to worry.    

The rise of Arvind Kejriwal is an extraordinary story of coincidence and craft. Given the national media concentration in Delhi (MCD) there is media fitness struggle to survive on hourly basis and the consequent drama invariably turns local and petty issues into national news, sometimes creating unprecedented opportunities.

Of Radical Democracy and Anti-Partyism

The populist notions that underlie critiques of the practice of representative democracy made by groups like the Aam Aadmi Party have some worrisome aspects. Their ideas of expanding the democratic involvement of citizens are not only romantic, they also tend to undermine political equality. The question that supporters of such "more democracy" need to ask themselves is, do we want to expand democratic rights but effectively restrict their scope?

It is not very often that a political party is discussed even before it has made its electoral debut. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), formally launched in late 2012, seems to have acquired that distinction. While Shukla takes a careful look at the vision document of the party, Anand Kumar presents a formal statement on behalf of the party. But such politically correct statements and intentions are not adequate grounds for the assessment of parties and organisations wanting to intervene in the political process. The ability to intervene, the direction of intervention and, above all, the social character of that intervention constitute the criteria for such assessments. For such an assessment, it is necessary to turn to the context that produced this new party and the issues that the founding group raised even before it was formed.

As of now, the AAP is an addition to the already crowded list of “registered unrecognised” parties. In January 2013, the Election Commission of India listed 1,392 such parties.1 Will the AAP be just one among this lot? And if it is indeed a “different” party, what exactly is the difference? As Anand Kumar makes clear, the party itself would like to be different in that it is a combination of a party and a movement. As a party it pitches itself against all other parties, not just as another competitor, but also as a force that seeks to undermine the bases of existing party politics. As a movement, it intends to sustain the momentum for the urban protests that it triggered and turn those protests into something more tangible and durable.

This note intends to discuss the context in which the party (AAP) emerged and how that context shapes both its radical democratic stance and the politics of anti-political establishment.

The Context
Obviously, the party thinks that it can break the monopoly of the “established” parties and gatecrash into the system. In all probability, the party’s first political test would come when it contests the Delhi Assembly election later this year. As it is, Delhi has been the theatre carefully chosen by the party even before it came into being. It is ironical that at a time when the theatre of politics has shifted away from Delhi, a party of reform should choose to project itself from the grounds and roads of the national capital without much grassroots organisation elsewhere in the country to precede it.

The other problem associated with the party right from the time prior to its inception has been its deep engagement with the media. The manner in which the party and the pre-party agitation was pitched made a love affair between the party and the media possible. To be fair, one could say that this is not an instance of the media setting the agenda; perhaps, it is the skilful handling of the new media that has helped the anti-corruption agitation and the AAP to launch themselves so visibly into the national political arena. But at a minimum, it is certainly a case of “mediatisation” of politics. In this process, the presentation of views becomes an important source of information and opinion formation for those sections, who are “without party identification”, who are “apolitical but sophisticated” caught in the midst of the crisis of the party system – exactly the constituency that the anti-corruption agitation and later the AAP tapped/is tapping.

The formation of the AAP is a culmination of the agitation that began in 2011 on the issue of a law for establishing an effective machinery to curb corruption in politics and bureaucracy. That agitation had the following tendencies. First, it was, in its broader sense, against corruption in public life (though the agitation and its residue even today confine themselves to the magic wand called the Jan Lokpal). Second, because the participants and many of its leaders felt that politicians tend to be more corrupt than the rest of society, the anti-corruption agitation expressed deep anxieties about politics and political parties. Third, that agitation did not have any socio-economic agenda and this fact helped it in generating support. The absence of an agenda meant that there would be less cross-cutting social cleavages that would undermine the agitation and its single-point anti-corruption mobilisation. Fourth, the agitation nurtured a romantic objective of making our democracy more real and people-based rather than representative-based. Thus, the agitation combined a paradoxical mix of cynicism towards politics and a radical democratic goal.

While the claims of the supporters make us believe that many parts of the country were engulfed by the agitation, this is a contestable claim. If anything, the agitation was an urban phenomenon – visible more in large cities and made more visible by the electronic media. This is not to say that corruption is not an issue for a large number of people – if you ask people whether corruption is an issue, of course they would endorse that statement. However, corruption is often down the list of main concerns – after price rise, employment and the like. Thus, to a straight question on whether the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government is corrupt, 28% of the respondents said it was very corrupt. More importantly, while 38% of the respondents believed that the situation regarding corruption had deteriorated, 50% thought that the situation regarding rising prices had deteriorated.2 This indicates that while corruption was seen as a major issue, people were aware of the other (more) pressing matters. When we ask someone if corruption is an issue, they would surely answer in the positive. However, when asked to name the “most important problem”, corruption is 14th in the list, with only 1% of the respondents mentioning it.

These details are instructive. They suggest that when there is a lot of discussion in the media on matters related to corruption and when people are specifically asked about corruption, they are bound to be critical of and concerned about the issue of corruption. However, this surely does not support a conclusion that today corruption has become the most central issue in the politics of the country.

This detour allows us to be cautious in assuming that corruption has become the key issue or that a sustained political struggle can be run on this issue or that a party can survive mainly on the basis of anti-corruption sentiments and exposes of corruption by politicians. Therefore, it becomes a moot question as to whether a party born out of and fed on anti-corruption sentiment and agitation can be a sustainable political force. If the party adopts only an anti-corruption agenda it is likely to limit itself to the hardcore of the anti-corruption crusade; if it broadens its agenda it is likely to lose its supporters who gathered around it without agreeing to many political positions the party later takes.

Populist Notions of Democracy
But the AAP may say that theirs is not just an anti-corruption platform; it is a party of political reform and better democratic practice. Both the early followers of the pre-AAP agitation and at least some of its key founding figures appear to have an affinity towards a radical conception of democracy. At one level, this stems from the critique of the practice of representative democracy. At another level, there seems to be a populist notion behind it. More than the single-point agenda of corruption that marked the beginning of the party, this aspect is somewhat more worrisome. There are always various suggestions regarding the reform and democratisation of the political process. These include the right to reject, right to recall, citizens’ initiative in formulating bills and legislative proposals, and wide-ranging decentralisation or localisation of decision-making powers.

To begin with, these proposals need to be juxtaposed with the actual experience of popular participation. That helps us appreciate the gap between the empirical citizen and the ideal citizen. Beyond voting, the level of popular participation is fairly limited – both in India and elsewhere in most other “democracies”. The National Election Study of 2009 and 2004 show that participation in election meetings has been on an average 23% and participation in election rallies has been just around 13%. Among the more active citizens, there is an under-representation of women, dalits and adivasis. Moreover, not more than 7 to 9% of the respondents are interested in “politics beyond voting and elections”.4 In such circumstances, right to recall and right to initiate legislations are measures that will allow the more articulate sections to have a greater say in the political process than they enjoy today.

It may appear paradoxical, but “expansion” of democracy in this manner does not always help democracy; it has a tendency to make democracy more selective and elitist. Thus, besides practicability, the restrictive nature of democratising measures is a crucial issue. Such democratising measures presuppose an equal citizenry in terms of social status and economic position so that status and livelihood constraints do not hamper the citizen’s chance to actually participate in the decision-making process.

As mass democracies emerged, the two tasks of democratisation and levelling of citizens’ actual socio-economic endowments separated and did not develop in a symmetric manner. As a result we now encounter citizenship that is marked by political equality and non-equal socio-economic situations. Against this backdrop, the ideas of expanding democratic involvement of the citizens are not only romantic, they also tend to undermine political equality. The question that AAP and supporters of such “more democracy” need to ask themselves is: do we want to expand democratic rights but effectively restrict their scope?

Shades of Anarchism
On the other hand, ideas of recall and legislative initiative also have a shade of political anarchism to them. Recall in particular is a recipe for chaos and undermining the system’s ability to run. Even at the local level, the recall provisions have been (rightly) tempered with provisos (such as no recall if one fails, and stipulations that no-confidence motions in panchayats can be moved only after a certain period has elapsed since the last election). The insistence on recall and such other procedures, however, are very attractive to those sections who want to see greater accountability of the representatives.

These measures are also popular because they tend to undermine the system of representative politics. In this sense, the AAP talks of “destroying” the system as the system is seen as a product of a fraudulent notion of democracy. If the representative system were to be destroyed, the first disenfranchisement will happen in the case of the poor, semi-literate sections with low socio-economic status. Therefore, the radical and seemingly revolutionary talk of unsettling the system becomes very problematic.

Besides, the solution in terms of decentralisation, local democracies and limiting the powers of central government requires careful consideration. The marginalised sections may find themselves more isolated and powerless if extra powers are vested at the local level. Democratic societies have yet to arrive at a satisfactory response to this dilemma – local power is the essence of democracy but local powers are more conservative, blind to the injustices of the local environments and antithetical to individual rights and entitlements. To wit, as the location of power becomes distant, the possibility of detaching it from traditional hierarchies is greater. Unless a community of roughly equal citizens exists, local power can become a romance with local repression. Any political intervention intending to undertake political reform will have to take into account this dimension and strike a very delicate balance between location of democratic power (of governance) and the loci of social power (of domination).

Associated with this issue of political reform is another complex issue of party building. It is not an easy task to graduate from a network of organisations, activists and like-minded actors into a political machine that is capable of serious intervention. As the AAP may be finding out already, when a new party is coming into being there is considerable excitement and rush among the politically more enthusiastic sections to join the party and own it. Their intention might sometimes be altruistic; they may also be instrumental at times.

A party that seeks to adopt very open procedures for designating its office holders runs the risk of being hijacked or being taken over by those who may have different ideas from those of the founders and more active members. During the India Against Corruption (IAC) phase, the agitation was repeatedly charged of being run by various elements such as the Sangh parivar, etc. Similarly, others (who are interested in destroying the system) may also take over the party at the ground level. Here too, how to balance democratic and open functioning, and interests and ideas that are central to the party is going to prove tough.

Anti-establishment Potential
The democratic ideas of the AAP need to be further problematised in the context of visible signs of anti-politics during the anti-corruption agitation. There is tension between the anti-politics sentiments of a large constituency that initially gathered around the pre-party agitation (some of whom later got attracted to the party in its initial phase) and the objective of cleansing and reforming politics that the party has adopted now.

The young urban professionals who seem to have found a cause in the anti-corruption agitation manifested deep anxieties about the politician and the political realm. They see corruption as a corollary of politics and related only to politics. This line of thinking allows large numbers of the “anti-politics” citizens to think that politics needs to be minimised, reformed and/or sanitised. Indeed, the politics of substantial sections of middle classes is marked by contempt towards politics itself. It is not clear if the AAP has acquired supporters beyond this group or whether it has convinced this group of the necessity of and messiness of politics.

The main targets of attack are elected representatives, party officials and public office holders. In this sense, the pre-party agitation run by the IAC and the tendencies prevalent in the AAP are close to the description of being “anti-political – establishment” though they also harbour more forthright anti-politics sentiments. Even the write-up by Anand Kumar expresses the anti-political-establishment stance of the party very clearly.

Therefore, in spite of the difficulties regarding its practice and position, we must also ask another question: what role may the AAP play in the politics of the country in the near future? This question becomes valid also on account of the unprecedented media attention the party has received; its ability to either produce mass protests (in select cities) or its ability to ride piggyback on “flash mobs” and the possibility that it might gatecrash at least in biparty situations where reliable third options are not emerging.

In the last four years, the Congress and the UPA have been discredited; but the real failure has been that of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It has singly failed as an opposition party. This has left a vacuum both at the all-India level and also in states where the BJP is the main contender apart from the Congress. Besides, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) too has not got its act together. It experienced defeat in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and has also been unable to mobilise voters in other states where it could have expanded. Given this overall inability of the existing parties to produce substantial reconfiguration, new and “mediatised” parties like the AAP would certainly think that they have a good chance to make their presence felt.

‘Spoilers’
As it so often happens in the Indian context, and particularly against the backdrop of diffuse multiparty competition at the all-India level, new parties end up being “spoilers” for one of the established players – and that too only in some states or places. There is no clarity about the threshold of relevance in the contemporary party framework in India. In comparative literature, 3% of seats is seen by one study as the threshold. For a multiparty competition with a large legislature, more than 17 or 18 seats may be a tall order. Even if we settle for 3% of the required strength as necessary for government (majority) formation, that amounts to five seats. Besides the Congress and BJP, in the present Lok Sabha, only the following eight parties have a strength of five or more: Trinamool, DMK, JD(U), Shiv Sena, RLD, CPM, SP and BSP. Then, there are 20 parties with three or less than three members in the House. The crucial issue is whether with three or five members a party would be in a position to force a certain policy or programme unless the party is necessary for government formation and is also willing to participate in the ruling coalition.

From the high reformist and moral language the AAP speaks, it is difficult to think of the party getting involved in government formation – even if we assume that it wins a couple of seats to the Lok Sabha or a few seats to a state legislature. Thus, crossing the threshold (even at the state level) might be tough and having crossed it, becoming relevant to policymaking and/or government formation is even more unlikely.

Against this backdrop, the main asset of the AAP will be its image as a party that is ready to take on the “establishment”. In more or less stable biparty/bipolar competition, third or minor parties “serve as vehicles channelling political discontent” because the third/minor parties tend to represent and capitalise upon prevailing “anti-partyism”. Existing literature suggests that those citizens who are fed up with parties in general tend to abstain from voting whereas those who are angry/upset with major parties tend to turn to new/third parties. 

With its specific targeting of the main opposition and the ruling party, the AAP in its short life so far seems to have sharpened a sense of “specific anti-partyism” (sentiments against the main parties), it is also possible that it has converted some general anti-partyism (an overall anti-party sentiment) into the specific version of anti-partyism. The crucial question for AAP is twofold – what space would it have in non-bipolar situations? And, does it have the capacity to place itself in a position to exploit the specific anti-partyism against the Congress and BJP beyond a few cities? But more than these questions of realpolitik, the question would be what kind of democracy it wants to build and what kind of political sensibilities it wants to tap.

'IPL SPOT-FIXING' A SYMPTOM OF INSECURE INDIA

By M H Ahssan / Hyderabad

Corruption in India is not a systemic problem as is commonly believed but the result of a deep flaw in the Indian character itself.

In the wake of the IPL spot-fixing scam involving cricketers Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan, there’s clamour all round that the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) once again failed to stem the widely-prevalent corrupt practices in Indian cricket.

Corruption In India: Multinationals Join The Accused

Subhinder Singh Prem headed Reebok's operations in India for several years. In 2005, German sports apparel company Adidas took over its U.K.-based rival, Reebok. Soon, Prem was put in charge of the combined entity in India. Last year, Adidas management accused Prem and some of his senior colleagues of defrauding the company of US$169 million. Amid a lot of mud-slinging and speculation that the Adidas brass knew of the problem earlier and was trying to resolve it internally, the German company filed a criminal complaint against former senior executives Prem and chief operating officer Vishnu Bhagat. The two men are still in judicial custody, though several others arrested in connection with the case have been released on bail.

Walmart has also been in the news in India because it was perceived as one of the principal beneficiaries of the contentious new foreign direct investment (FDI) policy in multi-brand retail. Then the company revealed that its joint venture in India -- Bharti Walmart -- had suspended its chief financial officer and some members of its legal team after an anti-corruption probe.

The scrutiny facing Walmart intensified when newspapers claimed that the company had been lobbying in India to woo Members of Parliament to its side in the FDI vote. The Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament) was totally paralyzed for a couple of days and, on January 24, the government appointed a one-man panel to probe the charges. Walmart says the lobbying was done in Washington, where it is legal, and not in New Delhi, where it is not.

Also in January, tax officials raided the Nokia India factory in Chennai. Company officials say they don't know what the raid was about and that the firm is fully cooperating with the authorities. Indian officials have also raided the offices of Vodafone India, a subsidiary of Vodafone Plc of the U.K., in connection with the irregularities in 2G spectrum allocation and following close on the heels of a renewed US$2.54 billion tax demand on the company. (There were simultaneous raids on India's leading telecom services company, Bharti Airtel.)

The government is investigating allegations of excise evasion by Cadbury India. Cadbury India is now in the process of becoming Mondelez International, a name it acquired after being taken over by Kraft and the restructuring of the latter. There was a time when the Cadbury name was synonymous with good corporate governance thanks to the Cadbury report -- the report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance -- prepared for the London Stock Exchange under the chairmanship of Cadbury Schweppes chairman Sir Adrian Cadbury.

Finally, "U.S. drinks giant Beam Inc., makers of Jim Beam bourbon and Teacher's scotch whisky, has initiated investigations into whistleblower allegations of financial misdemeanors at its India unit," The Times of India reported. "The world's fourth largest premium spirits company has asked the local senior management, including managing director Harish Moolchandani, to keep away from work pending investigations." Internet portal Rediff.com quotes a Beam Inc. spokesperson as saying, "based on a routine internal audit of operations in India, we are taking a closer look at the actions of certain individuals and practices in the India business."

New Regulatory Climate?
Before this becomes a laundry list of burgeoning multinational scandals -- there are many more, though not so high-profile examples -- it is worth looking for reasons for this rash of wrongdoers. Is there a new ethical or regulatory climate? S. Raghunath, dean of administration and professor of corporate strategy and policy at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore thinks so. "The increased attention to enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well as the Department of Justice has brought cases into public focus," he says. "There is growing intolerance to corruption, as well as business growth in countries of the world where bribes are part of accepted business practice."

Wharton management professor Saikat Chaudhuri has a different perception. "At the moment, there is so much general attention on corruption in India, with one scam after the other being uncovered for various reasons and by various parties, that I think the Western companies' role in them is a casualty of that process," he notes. "I believe that is why there is increased focus, as opposed to the enhanced scrutiny or application of U.S. or other foreign acts."

The FCPA dates back to 1977, so there should be no reason for it to have provoked the current scrutiny of corruption. Besides, companies from other countries are involved, too. Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli, who is also director of the school's Center for Human Resources, agrees with Chaudhuri that the FCPA has little to do with corruption issues becoming top of mind.

"The FCPA has not suddenly sprung new teeth," adds Dev Kar, lead economist at Washington-based Global Financial Integrity and the author of a report titled 'Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries 2001-2010'. "Whenever U.S. companies that are subject to FCPA operate in developing countries where the state of overall governance is weak, charges about bribery, kickbacks and other infractions are bound to arise," he notes. "Walmart was also implicated in bribery deals in Mexico. In an era of increasing globalization and investigative media collaborating across borders, transgressions are easier to track and report on."

Tracing the Roots of the Problem
The Walmart inquiry started from a New York Times report about bribery by the retail giant in Mexico. Further investigation uncovered that the corruption charges spread to India, China and Brazil. Another feature of the investigations involving Walmart, Reebok and Beam is that they started at the home office of each firm; local authorities in India came into the picture much later.

While Kar is clear that the FCPA has not changed, Clark Gascoigne,a spokesman of Global Financial Integrity suggests that the environment may have. "The FCPA was updated in the 1990s," he says. "Companies were given time to begin complying with the law. They have had ample time to adjust to the FCPA and have no excuse for being in gross violation of the law." The SEC and Justice have become more active. "That explains the increase in FCPA cases over the past few years," Clark Gascoigne adds.

"It is also important to note that eight out of the 10 biggest FCPA settlements were actually with non-U.S. companies," he continues. "The FCPA gives the Justice Department and the SEC the ability to go after companies for bribing foreign officials if the company has any connection to the U.S, such as having a subsidiary doing business in the country. One of the most notable FCPA cases was brought against Siemens, a German company."

Could a backlash against the excesses that led to the global financial meltdown have something to do with the quest for probity? According to Cappelli, "The fundamental problems that contributed to the financial meltdown are still around: Huge upside gains from success, however it is achieved, and relatively little downside costs for failure. Also, low risks of getting caught in malfeasance. A related issue is that the big companies with global brands and concerns about reputations now outsource much of their business to smaller vendors who do not have those concerns."

Chaudhuri notes that the U.S. "missed a golden opportunity to enact tougher reform during the financial crisis, to avoid the skewed incentive systems and resulting behavior that places risk upon the entire financial system locally and, by ripple effect, globally." He adds that the underlying issue is that the U.S. fundamentally is "an extremely capitalist society, and that is part of its engine -- unethical and immoral behavior is ultimately distinguished from illegal behavior. In fact, many finance scholars still argue that what happened in the financial crisis was the way markets are supposed to work -- they correct themselves." He says that India does not need to follow an identical path to curb corruption; it can follow its own principles.

Adds Raghunath: "Corruption like other forms of entrepreneurship has evolved considerably." A few years after liberalization, Enron admitted to a U.S. Congressional committee that it had spent US$20 million to "educate Indians" on the benefits of its power project in Maharashtra. Today, the money moves more subtly. In telecommunications, for instance, Indian companies acquired licenses at a knock-down price from the government with the aid of corrupt ministers. They then sold stakes in the companies that held these licenses to foreign telecom majors seeking an entry into India. The foreign companies paid several times what the Indian entities had shelled out for the licenses. On paper, they look foolish, but not criminal. All the players would have been happy if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in and cancelled the process. "The art of graft has advanced fast," says Raghunath.

Business without Corruption?
This leads to the inevitable question: Is it impossible to do business in India without greasing palms? Has corruption become a way of life? The indicators are not very satisfactory.

"In an era rife with globalization, transparent business practices and zero tolerance to fraud and misconduct are key concerns for companies doing business in India," according to a recent KPMG India fraud survey report. The global professional services firm found that top-level executives in India were reluctant to discuss the topics of bribery and corruption. Some 71% of survey respondents felt fraud was an inevitable cost of doing business. A global survey by Ernst & Young is equally blunt about the country: "Seventy percent of India respondents to our survey think that bribery and corruption are widespread in the country."

"No one can really justify corruption, but we need to be pragmatic as to how to tackle it amid the current realities," says Chaudhuri. "The Western companies' view that corruption is a way of functioning in India is probably at least partially correct given the way the bureaucracy works, though the Tata Group provides a staunch counterexample of how one can operate successfully without engaging in it. Hence, both firms and government are to blame, as they are in purely domestic corruption as well. But, fundamentally, I don't think the more basic behavior to influence officials is limited to India, it is just that fundamental human tendencies of this sort are managed differently in the West."

Kar notes that, according to the World Bank, India has a poor rating on business climate. "One of the reasons is related to bribery and corruption," he says. "It is difficult for foreign companies to operate in India without being touched by the issue in some shape or form. The pervasive weakness in governance is bound to increase the risk faced by all companies, domestic and foreign, that they will also be impacted by corrupt practices."

Cappelli adds that there is nothing new about this reasoning given" by Western companies that engage in corrupt practices. "That complaint [about needing to bribe for business] isn't unique to India," he notes. "And it's something that was said back when the FCPA was first debated."

Kar doesn't buy arguments from some that American firms are being made into scapegoats as an offshoot of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. "I don't think there is much truth to the charge that U.S. companies are being unfairly targeted in China, India and Mexico," he says. "After all, the U.S. is the world's largest source of FDI and countries can ill afford to alienate it. What may be happening is that investigative journalism carried out across borders and collaboration among them may be bringing some of these issues to the fore. Once an issue is brought up, then there is a momentum to it, although much of it may also fall by the wayside."

With new scams and scandals vying for attention, the older ones often fall by the wayside. Enron and the Indian politicians involved are history. The politicians shrugged off the allegations and are back in positions of power. Enron imploded, but for reasons that had nothing to do with its project in India.

The Way Forward
So is there a solution? "In my view, the solution to India's corruption woes lies in three parallel and reinforcing approaches," notes Chaudhuri. "The first is to introduce a lobbying system like in the U.S. [Lobbying is currently illegal in India.] This can be considered a legalized and transparent form of buying influence. This helps to also distinguish what might be perceived as unethical or immoral, versus illegal." The second approach India can follow, taking into consideration its status as an emerging economy, he says, is to "align interests of those seeking gratification and those wishing to expedite clearances or access. This might be achieved by introducing reward systems for facilitating maximum gain for the state exchequer or public good. The third approach is to leverage e-governance in every possible process, from issuing birth certifications to conducting auctioning of mines, to create transparency and reduce the power of the middleman."

According to Raghunath, "the long-term solution is based on building upon the local culture rather than seeking to change it… Corruption cannot be eradicated but, with economic and political development, there will be progress."

Is there a role for business schools in all this? Particularly in the U.S., the schools have been accused of putting ethics on the backburner while teaching the art of making money. Cappelli is skeptical. "We certainly tell people not to cheat, lie and steal, but my bet is that most of the parents of those who are [involved in corruption] told those people the same thing," he notes. "One thing the broader community could do better is to celebrate less the making of huge fortunes and more how it was done."

No one is really in a position to be pointing fingers, he adds: "It takes two sides to have corruption."

As Lokpal Step Away, Corporate India Getting In Action

By Pradeep Kumar | INN Live

Even as the ink is drying on the Lokpal Bill, India Inc is engaged with its legal eagles and consultants to examine its ramifications. At first glance it appears that nothing much changes for the corporate sector, after all they are currently governed by a plethora of anti-corruption legislation such as the Indian Penal Code or The Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, as business is now global anti corruption laws of other countries also apply. 

Is Anything More Corrupt Than A Govt Buying MPs?

By Balbir K Punj

During a recent meeting in Ralegan Siddhi, Anna Hazare’s team decided to renew its fight for probity in public life. One could say it is also time to judge the impact of his campaign on the system, asking some relevant questions. Has the first, “successful” phase of the movement really touched the collective conscience of ‘civil society’ and affected the attitude of the ruling establishment towards corruption? Or is its influence superficial?

Stripped of hyperbole, the real achievements of the movement are modest. Nothing has changed for the better on the ground. Our venal rulers continue on their course, smug as ever. Otherwise, the two whistle-blowers, Faggan Singh Kulaste and Mahavir Singh Bhagora, former Lok Sabha MPs (both of the BJP), would not be behind bars for exposing the cash-for-votes scam of July 2008, and their third comrade, Ashok Argal, would not be facing arrest.

The establishment’s vindictiveness is blatant of course, but on predictable lines. What is really shocking is the deafening silence on the part of civil society. Is a meaningful crusade for clean public life possible without standing by those who resist temptation and dare pull the plug on graft at the highest level? These three honourable men had done just that.

Actually, the anti-graft crusade started in the lead-up to the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, with BJP leader L.K. Advani constituting a task force to go into the issue of corruption at the top and Indian black money stashed abroad. The task force’s analysis hit the nail on the head: the virus begins with people at the top bartering favours at the expense of the exchequer in order to enrich either themselves, their kin, or organisations they or their kin have links with. One recalls the pledge Advani took not to hold any office till investigations into the hawala diary case did not clear his name. He rejoined Parliament only after he was proved innocent in the courts. It is from this that he derives the initiative and moral strength to take up the fight against corruption.

Approached by dalals of the beleaguered Manmohan regime and the Sonia Gandhi-led Congress at the fag end of the previous Lok Sabha term, when the UPA-I government was facing a trust motion on the nuclear deal, the three MPs promptly informed the BJP high command. They had the option of accepting crores in silence, but did not. Instead, as advised, they decided to expose the sordid drama through a sting operation, with the help of a TV channel. The TV channel let them down and they were left with no option but to bring the cash to the Lok Sabha, display it, and expose the sleazy game in front of the entire country. In any other civilised society, such men would have been hailed as heroes and honoured while those who tried to bribe them would have got their just deserts.

It is just the reverse here. The arrest of Amar Singh in the case is part of a cover-up operation. He was but a mercenary, doing a dirty job at the bidding of those who were the ultimate beneficiaries of this murky enterprise. Obviously, the cash did not belong to him. The investigating agency, the Delhi police, has neither tried to trace the origin of the cash nor brought to book the faceless persons who had written the script and directed this squalid drama. The theatre of the absurd is complete. The Delhi police has spared the faceless crooks and put the fearless crusaders behind bars. The message is clear: Say ‘no’ to temptation offered by the Congress and, to be sure, you’ll be damned.

The shameful event and its aftermath is full of ironies. The rulers, swearing by the sanctity and supremacy of Parliament while dealing with Anna’s team, have subverted that very institution. And Anna’s team, which had received nationwide support in its fight against corruption and the corrupt, has been indifferent to this issue, staring at us in the here and now. Why is that? Because the three heroes of this ignoble saga belong to the much-abused and demonised tribe of politicians. They resisted and exposed graft and are paying for it. So shouldn’t ‘civil society’ have rushed to help them?

In fact, the silence of ‘civil society’ on this stormy issue has to be seen in the backdrop of events leading up to the conclusion of Anna’s fast. There is little doubt that those who manipulate the system to fatten themselves are indeed cunning and ingenious. Otherwise, the recent anti-corruption crusade would not have ended with the issue being reduced to whose Lokpal bill should be the template for action.

The scamsters who are now facing trial in the 2G case are claiming that whatever they did has had the written or tacit approval of the prime minister and the then finance minister and that the two should therefore be summoned as witnesses. There was a report the other day that a SEBI board member has revealed that the current finance minister was trying to influence SEBI in cases involving some leading corporates. Surely, this indicates it is the Congress that is the fountainhead of corruption—more so than officials or bureaucrats at any level. Therefore, the focus of the debate on corruption must be on the Centre.

With 24x7 TV channels focusing on the swelling support for Anna’s team and the countrywide concern for the fasting crusader, UPA-II was able first to delineate the minimal demands of the team for the fast to be called off. The campaigners settled on three points, and the entire debate was turned around: instead of fixing the spotlight on those whose corruption was writ on every wall in Delhi, it was directed against an abstraction—corruption in the future. When it is evident who is corrupt now, at the political level, is it not a bit ridiculous to debate a future Lokpal to look at future corruption and the jurisdiction that body should have?

As the concern for Anna’s health rose across the country, the debate was becoming one of ‘civil society’ versus Parliament. In effect, the contention was reduced to a question of semantics. And finally when it all ended, with the whole Parliament thumping the desks and adopting the joint resolution by this demonstration of support, the Congress must have breathed a sigh of relief. The spotlight on the corrupt had been switched off—even if that was only for the time being—and the entire focus was on restraining countrywide corruption in the future; a parliamentary committee was to design the tools for doing that. In this manner, the Congress was able to lead by the nose the debate on black money and corruption.

For the next three months, the country may watch with bated breath how this standing committee, headed by a Congressman, tackles the several proposed versions of the Lokpal bill and arrives at one acceptable to all stakeholders. Meanwhile, the prime minister, who is said to have approved with his silence the handing of 2G licences to the undeserving, may relax. Delhi chief minister Sheila Dixit, exposed by the Shunglu committee and the CAG report on the CWG contracts—the money spent by her government was ten times what the committee headed by Suresh Kalmadi spent—can also take it easy.

So where does the battle against graft and exposing and punishing the corrupt stand at this juncture? No doubt, the stature of Anna and his team has gone up several notches in the public mind. People at large have a sense of victory over the system. Public awareness on corruption and the need to fight it is high. Especially in the middle class. In real terms, however, despite Anna’s campaign, there’s little to show on the ground. The original goal of bringing back Indian monies stashed abroad seems to have been completely forgotten. While the focus is on corruption in generic terms, the most visibly corrupt faces continue to be safe in their positions of power. They continue to manipulate the system to save the guilty and target innocents. An unscrupulous and a ruthless establishment continues to persecute, slander and vilify those who dared to raise their voice against its venality and frauds.

In its second phase, Anna has decided to focus on the long-pending issue of electoral reforms and performance audit of MPs. These are not metaphysical and abstract issues. They have germinated in the given framework of Indian politics. Can there be any meaningful movement on such issues divorced from the given context? Will Phase 2 of the movement also end in a sense of victory but without any tangible achievements to its credit?

Anna Hazare’s Jan LokPal: A Puppet on a String?

By M H Ahssan

Like most Indians, I have been following the anti-corruption movement that has taken center stage in India over the past few months. Anna Hazare and his Friends have been staging protests seeking a tough anti-corruption law. I must confess that the attention that this movement has commanded is indeed remarkable - I would say too remarkable for comfort to be a spontaneous venting we are used to seeing all these years in India. The speed and professionalism with which Anna Fast I and Anna Fast II have been organized has not missed anyone’s notice.  Further, many have also noticed the ultra-professionalism with which the media has been handled. Contrast this with Baba Ramdev’s fast at Ramlila maidan and the chaos that descended there when police sought to disperse the gathering. 

Given the fact that Anna Hazare has risen up from humble beginnings and his work has largely been in rural Maharashtra, the display of slick organizational and media management skills stands out.  Let’s face it - in India only a large national political party - either the Congress or the BJP - has the muscle and means to pull off a national event like this.  Some regional parties – for example DMK or even the AIADMK - have shown their mettle in organizing such events but that skill is limited to the state level only. The fact that Anna Hazare with a handful of his notable friends could pull this off astonishes me.

It is this feeling of astonishment that bothers me. 
 
The more attention I pay to Anna’s movement, the more reluctant I am to endorse it. Not that I do not support anti-corruption laws.  Far from it. A dynamic democracy like India periodically needs new laws for better governance. But that need cannot be a show stopper. The very fact that senior politicians have been arrested in 2G and Commonwealth Games scams and face possible convictions under existing laws shows that India’s problems has more to do with lack of political will than inadequacy of laws.  Most reasonable Indians know and understand this.  A real anti-corruption movement should seek to provide autonomy to the enforcement agencies to go after the corrupt.  Team Anna on the other hand has been silent on this and this bothers me.

Team Anna seeks to undermine the legislative authority of India’s Parliament and arrogates to itself powers to dictate the enactment of laws.  In other words, Anna and his Friends are now dictating to Parliament what laws should be enacted, when it should be enacted - and all on the terms and conditions it has dictated; Parliament may debate, but is not at liberty to even modify the Bill!  However, well-meaning the intentions of Jan LokPal may be, undermining Parliament’s legislative powers is unacceptable.  Luckily India’s MPs are not easily outdone. They have summarily rejected the deadline set by Anna and his Friends for passing the Bill. This is correct and needs to be commended.

Team Anna is not accountable to the electorate or any parliamentary committee or for that matter anybody. They are setting a dangerous precedent for any group with money and muscle to bring people to the streets to dictate their own set of laws. This would be jungle democracy.

Unlike the banana republics and paper democracies of the world, India and its citizens have enjoyed a liberal albeit poverty stricken democracy since 1947. A consequence has been that any major and contentious legislation in India is a time consuming process because diverse views and opinions have to be heard and accommodated – a fact that has only made India a vibrant democracy. Hence I do not understand the haste and urgency in passing the Jan Lokpal Bill.  Fighting corruption is one thing but setting a deadline for the legislation in our plural society will deprive the many smaller and weaker sections of society - through their elected representatives - a say in the process. This has not gone down well with many Indians. For example, see the deafening silence and hesitation of many prominent non-political Indians (especially former Justices) who are otherwise eloquent.

Negotiation is the heart of politics. Often compromise is the happy midway meeting that resolves contentious political issues.  But the Anna’s intransigence and often belligerent posturing has cast a doubt on their seriousness to negotiate. All negotiations - whether intended or otherwise - seem to predictably breakdown. 

One cannot but notice the complete lack of statecraft by Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government.  This is not the first fast-unto-death protest in India.  Probably no other government in the world has more experience in handling such agitations that India’s Central and State governments. But the amateurish handling of Anna’s protest points more to dissent within the government than real incompetence. This has only compounded Dr. Singh’s woes.

The more I look the more disquiet I get.  I am all for rooting out corruption but, Anna’s movement seems to be manufactured. I am not sure if Anna and his Friends are fighting corruption or using corruption as a weapon to fight India’s democracy. Their reluctance to submit to a Parliamentary committee, their undue haste, their insistence on having only Magsaysay Award winning Indians in the Jan LokPal Bill (at least in the early days)  - just to name a few– definitely do not point to the former.  

Their agitations, albeit peaceful and non-violent – has come at a time when the Supreme Court has been cracking down on political corruption and has ordered the CBI to investigate major scams of recent times. The 2G scam comes to mind not only because of the huge monetary loss to the national exchequer, but also because of the galaxy of important political honchos that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.  Never before has India seen so many powerful netas, babus and corporate leaders crowded in the damp cells of Tihar for corruption. I am not sure if it is the intended or unintended consequence – the show put up by Anna has surely diverted national attention away from the court rooms where major scams are unraveling.

It is true that Anna and his Friends have attracted a huge crowds – many of them young twitterrati.  Anna’s protest has provided millions of Indians - who have been enraged by the scale of corruption in the UPA government - a forum and a meeting place to vent. It would be naïve to assume that all or most of them are committed Anna followers. They would continue to support and hit streets for anyone who calls then to fight corruption. Baba Ramdev has also attracted huge crowds. They will disperse as quickly and quietly as they gathered.

Anna’s fixation in passing his pet Jan LokPal Bill reminds me of a puppet on a string.

'Indian Premier Leauge' Scam And Cricket 'Season 2014'!

By Rajinder Puri | Delhi

COMMENTARY Sports fans are stunned by the exposures of corruption in the Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket matches. The Justice Mukul Mugdal Committee to probe the IPL corruption has submitted its findings to the apex court after sifting all the evidence available including many taped conversations between betting bookies. 

Briefly, their findings are that there was systematic match fixing in which BCCI officials, celebrity owners of teams and top cricket players are suspected of involvement. The illegal money generated by betting syndicates had sanction from underworld don Dawood Ibrahim for possible use in terrorist activities. Most damningly, the BCCI President’s own son-in-law has been charged with corruption and match fixing. 

Sights On A Strong Lokpal

By Arvind Kejriwal 


Our UP yatra just got over. We spread the following message amongst people: “Annaji has received a letter from the prime minister assuring that a strong Lokpal Bill will be passed soon. Annaji believes in the PM’s assurance and has requested you to keep a watch on the winter session.” 

Unfortunately, the PM’s letter had come too late. The people of Hisar had asked for a similar letter of intent from all political parties before the Hisar bypolls. Barring the Congress, all other parties gave it in writing. The prime minister wrote this letter to Anna Hazare only after our Hisar campaign was over. Had this letter come in time, the campaign could have been avoided.

There is a misconception that the government had made this promise earlier, when Anna ended his fast. It is being alleged that we jumped the gun when the government had already made that promise. The truth is that there was no such commitment. If the commitment had been there, why did the Congress hesitate in giving such an assurance before the Hisar elections?

The Parliament “resolution” was only about three issues of the Lokpal Bill. There was no commitment on the rest of the issues. There was also no commitment when the Bill would be brought and passed in Parliament. The Hisar campaign got us this commitment from the government. 

We are not “anti-Congress”. Our only intention is to get the Lokpal Bill passed. If the BJP had been in power at the Centre and if they had not passed a strong anti-corruption law, we would have appealed to the people not to vote for the BJP. 

A question is being raised as to why we are opposing only the UPA when so many other parties are against the Jan Lokpal Bill. This is because parties other than the UPA cannot get the Bill passed. For instance, in UP, if Mayawati wants, can she get a strong anti-corruption law passed at the Centre? The answer is no.

Likewise, if the BJP or Mulayam Singh or Ajit Singh want, can they get a strong anti-corruption law passed at the Centre? Again the answer is no. But if Sonia Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi want, they can get this Bill passed immediately. That is the reason for our focus on the Congress. 

A question is being raised: If you oppose the Congress, won’t that benefit opposition candidates who are equally tainted, if not more? We completely agree with that. But if our opposition to the Congress benefits the opposition, isn’t the Congress responsible for that because it is not passing the Bill? Second, almost all major political parties have indulged in corruption. For instance, in UP, all the four major parties – Congress, BJP, SP and BSP – have been accused of indulging in corruption whenever they have been in power. People have tried out each one of them in the past. It has become clear now that changing faces and parties in every election will not work. We have to work towards systematic changes.

So, if you wish to check corruption in the BSP, BJP or SP, you need the Lokpal Bill and it is only the Congress that can give us the Lokpal Bill. If the ruling party does not work, don’t the people vote them out in the next elections? It is called the anti-incumbency factor. This time, the UPA is in power. There have been a series of scandals – both at the Centre and in states. Many parties are responsible for these scams. However, it is the UPA’s duty to pass a strong anti-corruption law to check these scandals. There has been a strong anti-corruption movement to demand such a law. The UPA did not pass that law. Naturally, people would be agitated against it. 


Our appeal to the people no to vote for the Congress if it does not pass this Bill by the winter session has drawn criticism. It is said that we are supporting the BJP. That is wrong. Our appeal will benefit all opposition parties, many of them happen to be regional. But the Congress would be responsible for that if it does not pass the Bill in the winter session.

It is being alleged that Anna’s campaign has suddenly turned political. That is wrong. We were always political, though we are not into party or electoral politics. We are into people’s politics. We are not supporting any candidate or party. We are not standing for elections. One should understand that corruption is a hardcore political issue.

Therefore, a campaign to fight against corruption cannot be apolitical. Our campaign in Hisar drew a huge response. One could argue that huge crowds at our rallies were a hangover of Ramlila Ground. But the public did not accept our appeal so easily. We were questioned and grilled by the crowds. It is only when they were finally satisfied that Hisar overwhelmingly voted in favour of the Jan Lokpal Bill. 

The country has waited for more than 42 years for a strong Lokpal Bill. We sincerely hope the PM will keep his assurance and Anna won’t have to visit UP before the forthcoming assembly elections.

Focus: AAP’s Political Expansionism In Public Morality Wrap

By M H Ahssan | INNLIVE

INDEPTH COVERAGE The idea of revolution to clean India’s politics may excite only the innocent. Experience tells that in spite of valiant efforts by previous anti-corruption crusaders, such as JP Narayan in 1970s and VP Singh in 1980s, India’s politics did not undergo any substantive change, except for throwing up a new generation of politicians. 

Each time corruption and poverty issues were successfully deployed for the regime change, however, neither the politics of the country nor the state of India’s poor showed any qualitative improvement. Aam Adami Party (AAP) led anti-corruption protests in Delhi too were built around the revolutionary idea of Vyavastha Parivartan whose real life interpretation ended up creating more problems than solving.