In a poor country like India, public representatives had to appear poor to garner sympathy from their constituents. It was no accident that Mahatma Gandhi, a barrister from Inner Temple, after coming to India from South Africa, always wore only a dhoti. Jawaharlal Nehru, another barrister from Inner Temple, born with a golden spoon, and the other leading lights of the freedom movement preferred to live in austerity, in solidarity with their countrymen. With the rise in general prosperity, Indian politicians nowadays do not need to flaunt their poverty, but spouting propoor rhetoric is a must for vote gathering.
The hypocrisy behind such posturing can be judged from an analysis by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which showed that 233 MPs i.e., 43 per cent of the 17th Lok Sabha MPs, faced criminal charges, and 83 per cent were crorepatis. Thus, the overwhelming majority of MPs are rich, with some also being on the wrong side of law. The composition of the 18th Lok Sabha is not likely to be any different; the percentage of candidates with criminal antecedents has not declined, and Lok Sabha aspirants include a number of individuals with a worth of more than one thousand crore rupees.
Still, the favourite whipping boys for politicians of all hues are plutocrats ~ personified by Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani ~ conveniently shortened, and conflated into AmbaniAdani. At the beginning of the present elections, and in fact much before, the Congress went hammer and tongs against the duo, accusing them of profiteering at the cost of the common man, with the connivance of the present dispensation. But after the third phase of voting, we find the Prime Minister, an avowed votary of free enterprise, accusing the aforementioned gentlemen of delivering tempo loads of cash to the Congress. Probably, as Cicero had said much earlier, it is a case of o tempora, o mores (Oh the times! Oh the customs!). But are plutocrats really guilty of the crimes they are charged with, viz. amassing fortunes in an underhand manner? The charge does not stick, because in the recent past, not a single prominent Indian businessman has been accused of a serious crime, much less been found guilty by a court of law.
Agreed, Indian businessmen are sharp and selfish, but that does not make them criminals. Rather, with Government jobs drying up, and the public sector not doing very well, private enterprise has driven growth, and provided lakhs of youth with steady employment. On the other hand, there are innumerable instances where politicians have been caught with their hand in the till, and with Chief Ministers of Delhi and Jharkhand along with cabinet ministers of sundry States being jailed on corruption charges, the public perception of morality of politicians has touched rock bottom. Playing a double game, in good times, politicians consort with businessmen, but abandon them at the first hint of danger. Thus, Vijay Mallya became a Rajya Sabha MP, with the backing of a national party.
Politicians, cutting across party lines, travelled in Mallya’s private jet, and enjoyed his famed hospitality, but were the first to condemn him when he turned rogue. Similarly, Nirav Modi is said to have accompanied the Indian delegation to the World Economic Forum at Davos, in 2018. The Vohra Committee, set up in 1993, to probe the nexus between criminals, bureaucrats and politicians, concluded: “The various crime Syndicates/ Mafia organisations have developed significant muscle and money power and established linkages with governmental functionaries, political leaders and others to be able to operate with impunity (as recently exemplified by the activities of the Memon Brothers and Dawood Ibrahim).”
The Vohra Committee suggested setting up of a nodal agency to which all existing intelligence and enforcement agencies (irrespective of the Department under which they were located) would promptly pass on all information in their possession, about crime syndicates. Pursuant to the Vohra Committee’s recommendation, the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB), was formed as a statutory agency to co-ordinate the working of myriad investigating agencies. Due to various reasons, mainly institutional resistance, lack of political will and legal hurdles, CEIB failed to achieve the purpose for which it was formed, and till today various investigative agencies continue to function in their respective silos.
The case of gangster Vikas Dubey exemplifies the ineffectiveness of enforcement agencies to curb organised crime. To reiterate: Vikas Dubey, a notorious criminal and district-level politician, was involved in a string of murders, and other crimes but had always escaped punishment. Through his criminal activities, Dubey had amassed assets of around Rs.6,000 crore, both in India, and abroad. However, myriad enforcement agencies ~ Police, CBI, SFIO, NIA, NCB and IB, who enforce criminal laws like the IPC, NSA, UAPA, MCOCA etc and agencies like the Income-tax Department, Customs Department, ED, SFIO, DRI, and DGGI, which enforce financial laws like the Income-tax Act, Customs Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Black Money Act, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act etc. failed to prevent Dubey from engaging in his nefarious activities, or even to ensure that he got his just desserts.
In the end, to assuage resentment of the public, Dubey was ‘encountered’ and some of his properties were bulldozed ~ a primitive way to deal with a criminal, when the country has so many sophisticated investigative agencies, as also a strong judiciary. The Electoral Bonds affair (2024) shows that the unholy nexus between criminals, bureaucrats, and politicians had strengthened and widened with time, with businessmen being coopted into the triad ~ sometimes reluctantly, for survival, but often willingly, with the expectation of reaping super-normal profits. To elucidate: Electoral Bonds data strongly suggests that some companies had donated money to political parties before or after award of lucrative government contracts. Surprisingly, some companies had donated money many times in excess of their net worth, pointing to those companies being fronts for others, indicating violation of both taxation and electoral laws.
Other companies had donated money after the visit of enforcement agencies. Instead of initiating penal action against the erring corporates and political parties, the government and those running it, without any enquiry, denied any wrong-doing and wholeheartedly defended the Electoral Bonds scheme. The PM said that the Supreme Court’s decision to scrap the Electoral Bonds scheme had pushed the country towards black money in elections, and that on honest reflection, “everyone will regret it.” One reason for the criminal, bureaucrat, politician and businessman nexus becoming almost impregnable is that political parties freely co-opt criminals and businessmen to their ranks, so much so, that it would appear that the three streams have merged. For political parties, businessmen are an inhouse source of cash, while criminals help them achieve dubious aims. In return, businessmen-turned-politicians corner lucrative contracts, while criminals get immunity from police action.
The criminal-politicianbureaucrat nexus can be broken only by preventing the entry of criminals into politics, and ensuring the honesty of politicians and bureaucrats. Many methods have been tried to achieve this result, like establishing exclusive courts for trying public representatives and disqualifying convicted politicians from running for office. A host of agencies e.g., Lokpal, Lokayukta, CBI and State Anti-Corruption Bureaus try to ensure probity in public life, but with little success, mostly because of lack of political support. The main impediment to rooting out corruption is the public acceptance of corruption.
There can be no end to corruption, till the public decides to boycott all kinds of corrupt public servants and not vote for criminals ~ even of their own caste. Institutionalised corruption has been the reason for the downfall of our ancient civilisation. As Salman Rushdie had observed: “There are two things in Indian history ~ one is the incredible optimism and potential of the place, and the other is the betrayal of that potential ~ for example, corruption. Those two strands intertwine through the whole of Indian history, and maybe not just Indian history.” It is for us to ensure that corruption does not become the bane of our present civilization also.
(The writer is a retired Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax)