‘Corruption-Free India’ Under BJP Government Is Just a Sham

Transparency International’s latest survey has revealed that India has the highest bribery rate in Asia.

India has the highest bribery rate in Asia according to the Global Corruption Barometer published by Transparency International. The report released on the eve of International Anti-Corruption Day, December 9, shows that nearly 50% of those who paid bribes in India were asked to, while 32% of those who used personal connections said they would not receive services like healthcare and education otherwise, without bribing. The findings are a scathing indictment of the anti-corruption claims of the ruling dispensation, which came to power on the plank of a ‘Bhrashtachar mukt Bharat’ (corruption-free India).

It is a fact widely acknowledged that unlike many countries, where corruption is restricted to the highest echelons, in India the malaise goes down to the lowest level of administration. While big-ticket corruption grabs eyeballs, it is the everyday petty corruption that haunts the common person.

Decentralised corruption cannot be tackled through any centralised fix. What is needed is to empower ordinary people to expose and report corruption locally, and systems that act promptly on these complaints to hold corrupt officials accountable.

Whittling down of RTI

Perhaps the single most effective tool available to ordinary citizens for exposing corruption in the last 15 years has been the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The law has been used by over three crore people in the country, especially by the poorest and the most marginalised who have understood the tremendous potential of the law to empower them to access their basic rights and entitlements like rations, pensions and healthcare.

A 2011 study by Yale University in India showed that using the RTI Act is as effective as paying a bribe in ensuring service delivery! The law has also been put to effective use by public-spirited citizens to shine the light on corruption and abuse of power in the highest offices.

Instead of strengthening the RTI regime, the last six years have seen a systematic attack on people’s right to information. The worst blow has come in the form of a persistent and concerted undermining of the transparency watchdogs set up under the law.

A protest against proposed changes to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Credit: Facebook/ Somnath S.N.

A file image of a protest against the changes to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Photo: Facebook/ Somnath S.N.

In 2019, despite stiff opposition within and outside parliament, the government pushed the RTI (Amendment) Act which compromised the autonomy of information commissions by allowing the Central government to determine the tenure and salaries of all information commissioners. The functioning of commissions has also been severely impeded by governments not appointing information commissioners in a timely manner.

The track record of the BJP-led government at the Centre has been particularly abysmal. Since May 2014, not a single commissioner of the central information commission (CIC) has been appointed without citizens having to approach courts.

The Global Corruption Barometer shows that 41% of people surveyed in India paid bribes to obtain official documents, like identity papers, and 42% paid bribes to the police. Tackling this kind of graft encountered by people in their everyday lives requires an effective timebound mechanism at the local level to deal with complaints arising out of corruption and wrongdoing.

Broken promises

The Grievance Redress Bill introduced in Parliament in 2011 created an architecture for receiving and dealing with complaints close to people’s place of residence down to the panchayat and municipal ward levels. It sought to make the supervisory structure accountable for resolving complaints in a stipulated timeframe, with penal consequences for failure to do so.

The Bill, however, lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha after the 2014 elections. Despite its poll promise to reintroduce the Bill in parliament if it came to power, the BJP has failed to do the needful. An effective grievance redress legislation would have helped significantly reduce arbitrariness and corruption captured in the Transparency International report and ensured better access to basic services and entitlements for people.

Giant cardboard cutouts of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and home minister Amit Shah in New Delhi. Photo: Reuters/Cathal McNaughton/File Photo.

In fact, even the Lokpal law meant to tackle corruption involving senior functionaries, which was passed after a long and arduous struggle in 2014, has been subverted. In 2016, key provisions regarding mandatory public disclosure of assets and liabilities of public servants were whittled down through amendments. For over five years after the law was passed, the chairperson and members of the Lokpal were not appointed.

Finally, the manner in which appointments were made, by a selection committee with a preponderance of the government and its representatives, raised serious doubts about the independence of the Lokpal even before it became operational. Subsequently, for nearly a year the govt did not make the requisite rules, prompting one of the Lokpal members to tender his resignation.

The anti-corruption ombudsman is clearly a non-starter, with a deafening silence from the institution on all recent allegations of big-ticket corruption like the Rafael defence deal and banking scams that have rocked the country.

Another significant finding of the Global Corruption Barometer is that while reporting corruption is critical to control its spread, as many as 63% of people surveyed were deeply concerned about retaliation. This concern is not misplaced. Brutal attacks on whistleblowers and RTI users in the country have highlighted the vulnerability of those who dare to show the truth to power.

In 2018 alone, 18 people were killed for blowing the whistle on corruption on the basis of information accessed under the RTI Act. Despite this, the government has failed to frame rules and operationalise the Whistle Blowers Protection law enacted in 2014 to provide a statutory framework for concealing the identity of whistleblowers and protecting them against victimisation. The law establishes a mechanism to receive and enquire into complaints against public servants relating to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

When the BJP came to power riding on the plank of fighting corruption and ensuring effective service delivery, it was expected that the government will immediately put in place a strong anti-corruption and grievance redress framework.

In the last six and a half years, however, critical anti-corruption legislations have languished and the government, despite widespread opposition, has pushed ill-conceived programmes like demonetisation and electoral bonds as the definitive solutions to the problem of corruption.

Limitations of relying on technical fixes like Adhaar-based biometric authentication in fighting corruption have been exposed through scams like the Jharkhand scholarship fraud. The Transparency International report should serve as a strong signal for the government to course correct, provided it has the political will.

Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri are social activists working on issues of transparency and accountability.

CAA in ‘Clear Violation’ of Indian Constitution: Amnesty International to US Congress

The human rights group also said that the law was in violation of international human rights law and “legitimises discrimination” on the basis of religion.

Washington: Amnesty International has told the US lawmakers that the recently enacted Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) stands in “clear violation” of the constitution of India and international human rights law and “legitimises discrimination” on the basis of religion.

The new citizenship law passed by Parliament in December 2019 offers citizenship to non-Muslim persecuted religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

The Indian government has been emphasising that the new law will not deny any citizenship rights, but has been brought to protect the oppressed minorities of neighbouring countries and give them citizenship.

Amnesty International Asia Pacific Advocacy Manager Francisco Bencosme made the remarks during a testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organisations and House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee.

The Indian parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act, which legitimises discrimination on the basis of religion and stands in clear violation of the constitution of India and international human rights law, Bencosme said.

India has asserted that the legislation on CAA was enacted following the due process.

“The CAA is an internal matter of India. It has been adopted through due process and democratic means,” Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs Raveesh Kumar has said, fending off criticism against the CAA.

Defending the CAA, Prime Minister Narendra Modi last month said that the law is not about taking away citizenship, it is about giving citizenship.

“We must all know that any person of any religion from any country of the world who believes in India and its Constitution can apply for Indian citizenship through due process. There’s no problem in that,” he said.

The two subcommittees jointly organised a hearing on Ending Global Religious Persecution.

(PTI)

Govt Decides to Send Privacy Bill to Joint Committee, not Shashi Tharoor-Headed Panel on IT

When Shashi Tharoor rose to protest against the move, Prasad retorted, saying as the chairperson of the standing committee on IT, he could not advocate his own cause.

New Delhi: The Narendra Modi government on Wednesday proposed to send the controversial Personal Data Protection (PDP) bill to a joint select committee of both Houses of Parliament, instead of following the traditional route which would have seen it being examined by the departmental standing committee headed by Shashi Tharoor of the Congress party.

As Opposition parties such as the Congress and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) attacked the government in the Lok Sabha for a growing “snooping industry” under its watch and alleged that the bill violated the Constitution, IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad refuted the charge and said a joint parliamentary panel could examine it in a detailed manner.

The government will move a proposal to send the bill to the proposed committee on Thursday, Prasad said.

This, however, infuriated the Opposition, which had called for the bill to be sent to the parliamentary standing committee on information technology (IT) headed by Tharoor.

The Tharoor-led panel has been active recently, especially with regards to the WhatsApp snooping case, which it took up despite reservations expressed by BJP members on the committee.

Opposition parties walked out in protest as the House, where the ruling BJP-led NDA has a massive majority, allowed the minister to introduce the bill.

According to a Lok Sabha memo, the joint select committee will contain 20 members of the Lok Sabha (shown below), but not include Tharoor.

1. Meenakshi Lekhi – Bhartiya Janata Party
2. P.P. Chaudhary – Bhartiya Janata Party
3. S. S. Ahluwalia – Bharatiya Janata Party
4. Tejasvi Surya – Bharatiya Janata Party
5. Ajay Bhatt – Bharatiya Janata Party
6. Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore – Bharatiya Janata Party
7. Sanjay Jaiswal – Bharatiya Janata Party
8. Kiritbhai Solanki – Bharatiya Janata Party
9. Arvind Dharmapuri – Bharatiya Janata Party
10. Dr. Heena Gavit – Bharatiya Janata Party
11. Uday Pratap Singh – Bharatiya Janata Party
12. Rajiv Ranjan Singh – Janata Dal (United)
13. Gaurav Gogoi – Congress
14. S. Jothi Mani – Congress
15. Prof. Saugata Roy – Trinamool Congress
16. Kanimozhi – DMK
17. P.V. Midhun Reddy – YSR Congress
18. Dr.Shrikant Eknath Shinde – Shiv Sena
19. Bhartruhari Mahtab – Biju Janata Dal
20. Ritesh Pandey – Bahujan Samaj Party

The committee will also have 10 members from the Rajya Sabha, which will be recommended by the Rajya Sabha itself.

Also read: Privacy Bill Will Allow Government Access to ‘Non-Personal’ Data

Before the introduction of the bill in the Lok Sabha, Opposition members such as Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury of the Congress and Saugata Roy and Mohua Moitra of the TMC spoke against the bill, demanding that it be examined by the standing committee concerned.

Chowdhury said a “snooping industry” had grown and Prasad’s ministry was “riddled with suspicions” about its conduct.

Roy said people’s privacy was breached, referring to the row over the use of Israeli software Pegasus to spy on the WhatsApp communication of some people. There was no necessity for the bill which, he said, would add one more layer of bureaucracy when the existing laws could deal with the matter.

They also cited a Supreme Court judgment that said privacy was a fundamental right to question the bill.

Prasad then tried to defend the bill,  asserting that it had the apex court’s mandate as the Supreme Court had underlined the need for a data protection law. The bill is aimed at safeguarding people’s rights and privacy, he said.

Privacy was a fundamental right but terrorists or the corrupt enjoyed no such right, Prasad said, citing the court’s order.

The proposed law was prepared on the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna Committee which, he said, had engaged in the “widest consultation”.

The minister said the proposed law sought to divide people’s data into three categories.

The information falling in the critical category would not be allowed to be taken out of the country and the one falling in the sensitive country could go out only with the user’s consent, he added.

The proposed joint select committee will be exclusively dedicated to examining the bill in a “most detailed manner”, Prasad said, adding that the government wanted the draft law to be ready by the budget session of Parliament, which starts by January-end.

When Tharoor rose to protest against the move, Prasad retorted, saying as the chairperson of the standing committee on information technology, he could not advocate his own cause.

The joint panel would have the sole agenda of going through the bill as the parliamentary standing committee had other bills to scrutinise, Prasad said.

Also read: Cabinet Approves Personal Data Protection Bill

The proposed law seeks bars on storing and processing of personal data by entities without the explicit consent of an individual.

It, however, provides for exemptions for “reasonable purposes” such as “prevention and detection of any unlawful activity including fraud, whistle-blowing, merger and acquisitions, network and information security, credit scoring, recovery of debt, processing of publicly available personal data and the operation of search engines”.

The bill also empowers the Centre to exempt any government agency from the application of the proposed legislation.

IT panel meeting on WhatsApp snooping cancelled

Strangely, a meeting of the standing committee on IT, which was scheduled to take place today, was postponed by the Speaker.

Legal and privacy experts, who were due to depose before the panel, expressed their reservations on Wednesday evening.

Tharoor later tweeted out that the meeting was postponed in “view of a 3-line whip issued by BJP to its Rajya Sabha MPs which would make it impossible for them to attend”. However, the Congress leader criticised the manner in which a few other standing committees were allowed to meet.

JNU Fee Hike Row: Multi-Party Delegation of RS MPs Seeks HRD Minister’s Intervention

The MPs also expressed concern over the “total breakdown” of communication and democratic procedures because of the “autocratic behaviour” of the current JNU vice chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar.

New Delhi: A multi-party delegation of elder parliamentarians on Thursday met Union HRD minister Ramesh Pokhriyal ‘Nishank’ and sought his intervention to resolve the month-long JNU crisis over the students’ hostel fee hike.

The delegation, which met the minister and submitted to him a memorandum on their demand for resolution of the student crisis, comprised all Rajya Sabha members, including Amee Yajnik, Rajeev Gowda, L. Hanumanthaiah and Syed Naseer Hussain of the Congress, Binoy Viswam and K.K. Ragesh of the CPI and Manoj Jha of RJD, said a release by JNU teachers’ association.

Also read: The JNU Fee Hike Affects Students with Disabilities More Than We Realise

While apprising the minister of the issues raised by the JNU teachers and students, the MPs also expressed concern over the “total breakdown” of communication and democratic procedures because of the “autocratic behaviour” of the current JNU vice chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar.

They urged the minister to intervene in the matter and help break the ongoing deadlock, the JNUTA said.

A joint delegation of the JNU teachers association and students too met and apprised the parliamentarians of various parties of their grievances and sought their intervention in “stemming the rot” in the university administration, the JNUTA said.

The JNU students have been observing a strike for over a month now over the hike in hostel fees.