The Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI Act) is a watershed legislation in India. This law is perceived of having the potential to expose corruption, and ideally contribute to prevent it. However, the exposé today from the state of Kerala, involving the State Information Commissioner, Mr. Natarajan, sheds light into methods with which the very same persons, who are mandated in enforcing this law, could render it useless.
It is reported that Natarajan was pressurising the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. V. G. Kunjan, to remove the name of the former Chief Minister of Kerala, Mr. V. S. Achuthanandan, from the list of accused in a corruption case Kunjan is investigating. Interestingly, if the allegations are true, Achuthanandan is the central suspect in the corruption case.
In a telephone conversation between Natarajan and Kunjan, Natarajan has reportedly suggested to Kunjan “as an investigating officer, you can decide where to anchor you boat (investigation).” Natarajan, who is a former Deputy Inspector General of Police, explained to Kunjan over telephone, how he could ‘save’ a Village Officer, who was apprehended ‘red-handed’ accepting bribes, in a tarp case against the officer, that Natarajan investigated while he was in police service. Natarajan explained that all he had to do was (criminally) tampering the content of the First Information Report and the case diary in that case. Natarajan concludes the conversation after placing a ‘personal’ request to Kunjan, to do the same in the case against Achuthanandan.
It is no surprise that the State Information Commissioner was suggesting his subordinate colleague how to commit a crime by hiding suspected corruption of a former minister. Such things happen in India and are routine. It is equally mundane a fact that such an officer, having serious criminal antecedents entertaining close allegiances with top brass in the state politics is appointed as the State Information Commissioner, to implement the RTI Act and hence to deal with corruption, after he retired from the state police service.
Former Supreme Court Judge, Justice K. T. Thomas, who took objection to the reference made by Justice J. B. Koshy that “most police officers in the state are corrupt”, will have difficulty defending his position, now that there is one more example to corruption in police service, a character these officers fail to shed, even after retirement. Justice Thomas is correct. Not all officers are corrupt, but most of them are. To render a cup of tea poisonous, one do not require a pint of poison, a drop would do. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is certain that Justice Thomas is aware that there are more than a few exceptions in the state police service; officers who are corrupt and with serious allegations of crimes they have committed.
The discussion above is of much less gravity, given what is going on in the central parliament. Of many infamous Indians who have made to headline news during the past three years, names like Mr. Suresh Kalmadi, Mr. Andimuthu Raja and Ms. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi stands out.
Kalmadi was the lead person behind the shame, Commonwealth Games 2010, held in New Delhi. He and his team, allegedly have sought and obtained bribes right from the purchase of toilet papers in the Games’ village to the construction of structures, of which the main bridge, alleged to be a tourist attraction, did eventually attract attention, when it collapsed hours before the opening ceremony. A games from which international athletes withdrew due to unhygienic conditions in which they were asked to live and compete, was the shame of India, exposed in front of the entire world.
Kalmadi was arrested and detained for a prolonged period of time after which he was released on bail. A court prohibited him from attending London Olympics representing India as an official since the court was of the opinion that he has done enough damage to India already for which he was jailed. The corruption did cost Kalmadi his job as the president of the Indian Olympic Association (IOC). But after release, he is back in full steam, reinstated as the President of the IOC and now, above all, Kalmadi is a member of the Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs.
Raja and Kanimozhi on the other hand were accused of corruption that makes Kalmadi and his team a minuscule drop in the ocean. The figures exposed and allegedly lost to the national exchequer during the reign of Raja as a minister in the central government has that many decimals in it, that if one million each were to be given to every Indian, out of the money that Raja and Kanimozhi has made India loose through corruption, every Indian today would be a millionaire.
Many in India critique the US and its politicians for working to benefit the ‘selfish’ interests of the US. The prudence shown by the politicians in the US of blacklisting two Chinese technology firms accused of causing possible security threats to the US is however something their Indian counterparts could only envy. Not only these two blacklisted firms have been long selling telecommunications equipments in India, one even owns a telecommunication network in India. Security of business and national interest were the least priority for persons like Raja and his comrade Kanimozhi when they sold off telecommunication licences to alien interests allegedly after accepting bribes, for which they were both jailed as under-trial prisoners for about an year.
The prudence of safety, security and at the very least, honour, however did not dawn upon the country’s parliament or its members when both Raja and Kanimozhi were back in the parliament and soon co-opted into parliamentary committees. Raja is a member of the parliamentary committee on Energy, another possible source for selling ‘interests’ and Kanimozhi in the committee dealing with nothing less than home affairs.
Not that Kalmadi, Raja and Kanimozhi must be presumed guilty before conviction. Given the way the justice institutions work in India, by all probabilities they will never be convicted since judges, prosecutors and investigators have a lower price tag in the country. However, at the very least the country’s parliament should have shown the wisdom to keep them away from assuming serious responsibilities placing national interest at stake when cases against these persons are pending in court. But that is possible in countries where the parliament has wisdom and it chooses to exercise it.
Thus it boils down to the argument, if suspected criminals decide national policies, priorities and legislations, similar persons dealing with transparency in governance is just a matter of logical modus tollens. It is a logical construct that could be extended to the notion of democracy as well. Until then let Natarajan and persons like him enjoy their post-retirement benefits, for doing the ‘needful’ to those it matters.
Let there be no investigation against crimes committed by officers like Natarajan, since in India this is how things are. It is today a land of dealmakers who compete between each other, to sell the country and its people for a price, piece by piece.
———-
For information and comments contact:
In Hong Kong: Bijo Francis, Telephone: +852 – 26986339, Email: india@ahrc.asia
Picture courtesy: http://india.5thpillar.org
