Andhra Pradesh was in news recently following an open call given by the Chief Minister to the people to fight against corruption. It was followed by launch of a toll free number so that people can complain against any official demanding bribe. Further, the IIM Ahmedabad has been roped in to study the situation and suggest ways to curb corruption in government departments.
There has been a debate as to what is better for the administration — a corrupt and efficient officer or an honest and inefficient officer? It goes without saying that an honest efficient officer is the first choice and, of course, a dishonest inefficient is the last choice. But given a choice between honest inefficient and a corrupt efficient officer, many may prefer the latter. More importantly, the system so functions that the honest end up inefficient since the system does not protect those who take decisions without any malafide intentions, if at a later date it is found that certain rules or regulations are violated.
This is what nobel laureate Gunnar Myrdal had in mind when he elaborated on corruption way back in late 1960s in india in his book Asian Drama. The problem with the prevailing atmosphere of corruption is that the honest hesitate to take decisions for fear of malafide intentions being attributed and thus end up being called inefficient. Perfect case would be the ongoing INX media case. Along with former finance minister P Chidambaram and his son, five other officers who dealt with the file have been charge-sheeted.
A case of receiving pecuniary gain has been made out only against the former finance minister and his son but the other five officers have been charge-sheeted though no case of pecuniary gain has been made out against them. If charge sheet was to be filed against an officer for violating any rule or regulation it is very easy to make a case against all officers since in the course of their career spanning over 30 to 40 years there would be any number of times where they may have to break a rule or a regulation to get things done.
But the way we have devised our laws, violation of a rule or regulation without any pecuniary advantage is also considered criminal and cases are being booked against officers. In fact, the officers against whom charge sheet has been filed in the INX Media case are known for their efficiency and integrity both in their home cadre as well as in Government of India. The first step in fight against corruption is to clearly amend our laws to file case against only those who get a pecuniary advantage.
There cannot be and should not be provisions for presuming pecuniary benefit just because a rule or regulation is not followed. Unless such an atmosphere is created, the honest shun taking decisions and we’ll have created an atmosphere for growth of honest inefficient officers.
There are enough number of administrative reform reports on containing corruption in government and one more report by IIM will only add to that list unless government is serious in moving forward on this issue by taking series of measures in right earnest. In a situation where corruption is all prevalent there is no point in looking for absolute standards of honesty. It is relative and people and employees should get the impression the most corrupt are getting punished. Some years back there was this experiment in UP where officers themselves held a secret ballot to decide the most corrupt officers in the cadre. If government is sincere, the fight against corruption should start with the most corrupt.
Till now all anti corruption agencies have concentrated their raids and actions against the lower level officers. Does this mean higher bureaucracy and ministers are honest? The answer is a firm no. Unless corruption is addressed and tackled at higher levels going after the lower staff will have no meaning. It is seamlessly integrated into the system going right up to the top.
It is not uncommon for those in the seat of power to misuse the anti corruption agencies to target officers who are not toeing the line the political leadership wants. When such recourse is taken by the political leadership the very functioning of the anti corruption agencies becomes suspect.
In terms of preventing corruption greater level of decentralisation limiting discretion to the extent possible at different levels and making use of the information technology to make available services and facilities to the citizens in a time bound manner without personal interface would be helpful.
The desire expressed by the political leadership to contain or eliminate corruption is welcome.
Unless this statement is followed up by a series of measures in right earnest in that direction this will also end up as one more public pronouncement without conviction.
IYR Krishna Rao
Former chief secretary, Andhra Pradesh