The Congress has been blocking a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe into the 2G Spectrum scam and behaving as if such a probe could prove fatal to the party’s image and political prospects. Going by past record, it must be said that the party has never held out this long and staked its reputation merely to protect a minister, that too one from an alliance party. Is there a message in the party’s obduracy? A glimpse at what transpired in three earlier JPCs may help us answer this `1.76 lakh-crore question.
The first of the three JPCs was the one which probed the Bofors-India deal. This committee was set up, after much resistance, following revelations made by Swedish radio on April 16, 1987, that Indian politicians and officials were bribed by Swedish arms maker Bofors to win a contract to supply field guns. The deal was signed by the Rajiv Gandhi government just a year before the scandal broke out. Though the Congress had 410 MPs in the Lok Sabha, it was rattled by the ‘breaking news’ from Sweden and launched a massive cover-up to shield Rajiv Gandhi and his family from the allegation that they had received commissions from Bofors via front companies and friends with Swiss bank accounts. As more and more information about the payoffs poured in, the opposition stepped up pressure for a JPC.
The Congress conceded the demand three months hence when it realised that the people had begun to believe that the prime minister had something to hide. However, even as it did so, it ensured that the terms of reference put the committee in a straitjacket. It did not want the committee to travel abroad or record the testimonies of witnesses in Sweden and Switzerland.
Given these constraints, the opposition felt that the JPC was a toothless wonder and decided to stay away. The Congress however went ahead with this lame duck inquiry, packed the committee with loyalists of the Nehru-Gandhi family and chose the most trusted loyalist — B Shankaranand — as its chairman. Since it had over 400 members in the Lok Sabha, this JPC was an overwhelmingly Congress committee. Further, in order to give the committee an ‘all-party’ veneer, some MPs of the smaller, friendly parties who reluctantly occupy opposition benches, were drafted as members.
Shankaranand lived up to the great expectations that his leader had in him and produced a report which was dubbed a ‘whitewash’ by all citizens who could sift fiction from fact. The committee claimed in its April, 1988, report that no middleman was involved in the gun deal and there was no evidence of commissions or bribes having been paid. The committee did not summon a single minister or pose a single question that would have embarrassed the government. Within weeks, the media produced damning evidence of payments made by Bofors to several entities including Ottavio Quattrocchi, a friend of Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi, in whose account Bofors had deposited $7.3 million.
A year later, the Comptroller and Auditor General questioned many conclusions of this JPC, including the ones pertaining to agents and commissions. He wondered why the government had not acted on the advice of the Indian ambassador in Sweden that Bofors’ books of account be examined by Indian auditors and why the Bofors contract did not specifically contain the ‘no agents’ clause. As all this evidence tumbled out, it became obvious that the Shankaranand committee report was not worth the paper it was printed on. No other parliamentary committee had wrought such damage to the institution of parliament as this one. But then, the credibility and dignity of Parliament has always been sacrificed by the Congress to protect its first family. The party even reduced Parliament to a rubber stamp to enable Indira Gandhi to survive in office after she was unseated by a court for corrupt electoral practice.
The party displays sweet reasonableness and becomes responsive to public opinion when the Nehru-Gandhis are not involved (sacking of Ashok Chavan). That is why the JPC that probed irregularities in securities and banking transactions between August 1992 and December 1993 when P V Narasimha Rao was PM, produced a comprehensive report with minimal interference by the Congress. Similarly, the JPC on the stock market scam (constituted in April 2001, report — December, 2002) when A B Vajpayee was PM did an exhaustive analysis of the problem and compelled the government to step up vigilance and regulation in the financial sector. Manmohan Singh was examined by both these JPCs (as finance minister in 1993 and ex-finance minister in 2002). Apart from Singh, the 1992-93 JPC examined Shankaranand, health minister who earlier held the petroleum portfolio and Madhu Dandavate, former finance minister. The 2001-2002 JPC examined two ministers and two former ministers, Manmohan Singh and P Chidambaram. Why should the PM with such familiarity with JPCs flinch at the prospect of another tête-à-tête with a JPC now? Whom is he protecting? Those who say nothing comes of JPC investigations have obviously not read the reports of these two committees. It is rather strange to hear spokespersons of the Congress saying this unless of course they have the Bofors JPC in mind.
According to the CAG, the 2G scam could have cost us `1.76 lakh-crore. This is possibly the biggest loss that a minister has caused to the exchequer via a single policy in the democratic world. If this is not worthy of a JPC probe, pray, what is?
Yet, the Congress has been holding out throughout the Winter Session of Parliament and displaying utter contempt for public opinion and parliamentary processes. There are enough clues in history as to when the party displays such crass obstinacy. So, if you think the scam is all about A Raja and the DMK, think again. You could be barking up the wrong tree!
suryamedia@gmail.com