Author: Balbalbir K. Punj
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: August 10, 2002
URL: http://www.indian-express.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=7370
Introduction: The Congress party
dipped into the same petrol pump pool and has got away with more than just
wet feet
The Indian Express has lived up
to its reputation as a newspaper of courage in investigating the recent
allotment of petrol pumps, LPG dealerships and kerosene retailing. Since
democracy assumes that no one in authority is above temptation, the press
becomes the guardian of public interests.
It is not a question of whether
or not a minister or the BJP used political power to swing these lucrative
allotments in favour of some of its cadres or their relatives. If Petroleum
Minister Ram Naik had been allowed to make the statement in Parliament,
he would have pointed out that these so called "shady allotments" constituted
only 7% in four years of the BJP-led government.
And many of those baying for his
blood in the Opposition had beseeched Naik to use his influence to help
their cronies and kinsmen. Why didn't the Opposition allow him to make
the statement in Parliament? Since when has democracy come to mean the
accuser has all the right to accuse, but the accused has no right to defend
himself? One seasoned politician, now with the Congress, even took umbrage
to the BJP's baring the names of Congress and secularist "cronies and kinsmen"
to the press. If democracy means only the accuser has the stage but the
defender has none to state his position, it will soon time for mobocracy
to usurp the debate.
The Express report did fuel the
perception that the BJP misused its position to swing allotments in its
favour. It was therefore statesmanship on the part of Prime Minister Vajpayee
to have ordered the cancellation of all the allotments.
In the past, especially on the Bofors
issue, the Congress, had set a precedent of refusing to accept facts and
seeking to defend the indefensible even in the face of incontrovertible
evidence of wrongdoing. There was, then, a lot of political courage in
Vajpayee's decision.
Even his critics haven't said that
Naik or the party was the pecuniary beneficiary of such wrong allotments.
That again contrasts with what happened under the Congress earlier.
Public interest is served by examining
whether the procedure adopted or the decisions made were mala fide. The
allotments of petrol pumps and LPG dealerships have a bad stench around
them right from the time of Congress rule.
The October 2000 guidelines clearly
pushed the selection boards towards transparency-the procedures were publicised
on the website. The selection was widely advertised and applications invited.
The results too were open.
The guidelines clearly stated that
officers of the oil company must investigate in case of complaints-through
a well-defined and advertised procedure. Even the complaints against the
boards have to be enquired into by the designated authority-that is, DG
rank officer of the Oil Ministry. There have been cases of the Government
acting promptly on instances of complaints being found justified and cancelling
the allotments or removing the selection board members.
There should be something seriously
wrong with our system if, despite all these precautions and transparencies,
these selections could be influenced. One criticism against Naik is that
in January 2001 he altered the rules by allowing the Chairman to allot
up to 200 marks in an interview of the prospective aspirants, i.e double
the marks of what other member could allot.
When this matter was brought before
the Gujarat High Court, it remarked in October 2001 that the change made
by the Government "does not appear to be unreasonable or arbitrary".
The chairmen were retired HC judges.
They should be trusted enough to provide leadership to the board, and quite
capable of handling responsibly the privilege to allot higher marks than
what other members of the selection board could.
How frivolous some of the accusations
are could be gauged from one recent case. A few days ago, the Bombay High
Court decided one such case where the allegation was that the person selected
was the brother of a Shiv Sena MP and therefore the selection was mala
fide.
The court observed that the charge
of political influence on the selection board was a mere averment and "nothing
has been produced on record." The petition was dismissed. Somebody is yet
to produce any record that the majority of the 59 selection boards were
instructed to act in a particular way to favour the BJP.
The BJP and other political parties
on both sides of the House should welcome the Express expose for focusing
on some fundamental issues beyond alleged wrongdoing or otherwise of those
in power.
First, the whole issue of allotments
of lucrative privileges like petrol pumps itself needs to be re-examined.
The Congress today may try to speak from a high moral ground. But what
moral ground does it commands when one of its key functionaries working
close with two party presidents applied and got petrol pump in the name
of his "unemployed" wife who in turn declared that her husband has lost
his job and had no means of livelihood!
The reference is to Vincent George,
a close aide of Rajiv Gandhi and subsequently of Congress president Sonia
Gandhi. In October 1991, his wife Lilly applied and got the retail outlet
and the Narasimha Rao government said that she should be given the outlet
on "compassionate grounds".
And what about Ajit Jogi, Chief
Minister of Chhattisgarh, who in 1995 applied for and got a retail petrol
outlet on the ground that he had no other source of sustenance! He gave
it up only when there was a media furore.
Those who were part of the Satish
Sharma web of corruption are suddenly posing as saints and moralists. Even
this time, requests for special favours came to Naik from all quarters-as
the country knows by now, such Congress worthies as Dr Manmohan Singh,
Oscar Fernandes, Margaret Alva, Moti Lal Vohra, Santosh Mohan Dev, Sis
Ram Ola, A C Jose, K A Sangtam, G Puttuswamy Gowda and Jyotiraditya Scindia.
The list is only illustrative of
the pressure that Congressmen from different states imposed on the minister
for such allotments. Communist MPs like Basudev Acharia, Ajay Chakrabarty,
Nagendra Nath Ojha, and Bhan Singh Bhaura are the saints who urged the
minister to sin. With what face are they now posing the great moralists
of political virtue?
The whole issue revolves around
discretionary powers with the government and the fact that there are plums
in the hands of (any) government. And people who can wield influence do
ask the government and its ministers to oblige. There is not a single MP
who does not face demands from his constituents for leveraging influence
on job interviews, special allotment of telephones, or for transfer of
officials.
Some of these pressures are unavoidable
in a country of shortages. The MPs in turn get to the ministers to squeeze
out such allotments. But when the minister obliges, and the favours come
to light, everybody turns a moralist and condemns the minister.
I am not speaking of favours, which
are made specifically for obtaining money from the beneficiaries-there
can be no excuse for such sell off and it should be condemned outright.
I am speaking of leveraging where no pecuniary benefit is either expected
or given. Instead of trading charges and seeking to pose as saints while
behaving as sinners, the political establishment must recognise the fact
of leverage and set an acceptable limit for it.
The prime minister has now divested
his government of many such privileges. The command of control regime,
a legacy of Nehruvian socialism is progressively on its way out-and hopefully
a rational and transparent mechanism will soon be in place.
(Balbir K Punj is a Rayja Sabha
MP and convener of the BJP's Intellectual Cell)
