Why does the IAS Association defend HC Gupta but not Ashok Khemka?

Call it whataboutery, but it is not. It tells us something crucial – about the bureaucracy and ourselves.

The fervent defence of former Coal Secretary HC Gupta seems to be taking India into dangerous waters.

India’s Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 should be amended, wrote Partha Sen Sharma, a serving Indian Administrative Service officer in The Times Of India on Tuesday, to “make it mandatory to prove pecuniary benefit to a civil servant before he can be implicated in criminal liability”.

Sharma is not the first person to articulate this demand. In the last two weeks, ever since the former coal secretary HC Gupta, currently under trial for his role in the captive coal block allocation scam, told the special CBI court that he wanted to withdraw his personal bond due to financial difficulties, a clutch of serving and retired IAS officials have said that a quid pro quo – a favour or advantage granted in return for something – needs to be established before a bureaucrat can be put up on trial.

Take former cabinet secretary BK Chaturvedi. In a column titled “Civil Servants Bear The Brunt Of Corrupt Governance”, a sentiment that India’s poorer millions would probably have sharp words about, Chaturvedi wrote: “Unless there is clear proof of mala fide decisions made by the officers and clear benefit received by them, criminality cannot be assigned.”

These are problematic suggestions. If accepted, they will result in a dramatic reduction of the bureaucracy’s accountability to the rest of the country.

The question of accountability

Let us now examine the case under question. From all accounts, Gupta is an honest and upright officer. But when the coal scam was underway, what was needed from him was more than personal incorruptibility. He needed to hold his responsibility to the country higher than what the functionaries in the Congress seemed to have been telling him to do.

This is a point that his defenders do not address. Take Sharma. Gupta is being hounded, argues Sharma, because of a draconian clause in the Prevention of Corruption Act. Its Section 13, he writes, “makes any civil servant criminally liable if his act leads to pecuniary benefit to anyone and which is deemed to be not in ‘public interest’”.

This, he says, is problematic because every allocation will “naturally benefit” someone. Also, as he says, notions of what constitutes public interest are subjective.

It is a disingenuous argument. It is obvious that an allocation will benefit someone. The question, as an IAS official told Scroll, on the condition of anonymity, is whether one can explain the rationale for that decision. That is why Gupta is in trouble.

The Screening Committee that Gupta headed disregarded its own internal comparisons of all the applicants, as a Central Bureau of India official had pointed out. Subsequently, as we know, several of the files pertaining to the allocations went missing as well.

In other words, Gupta is not in the dock because he made recommendations that benefitted some companies. He is in the dock because he cannot explain why those companies were chosen. He cannot explain those decisions because he is not the one who made those decisions to begin with. Politicians, especially from the ruling Congress Party, influenced the allocations, this reporter was repeatedly told while covering the coal scam.

The costs of the coal scam, as we know, have been spectacular. They go beyond the Rs 1.86 lakh crore loss calculated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or the fact that several of our politicians slipped coal blocks to their friends and families. The coal scam skewed competitive advantage in sectors like power and steel sector towards politically powerful companies that could bag coal blocks. Ownership over the country’s coal reserves got concentrated among a few business families. Given that several of these families also control other minerals, the coal scam helped push India closer to an oligarchic future.

In other words, Gupta is in trouble because he did not oppose what the government was doing. This shows in the charges filed against him. He has been charged for “criminal breach of trust by public servants”, and “criminal misconduct by public servants” of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The larger question

When Chaturvedi and Sharma say bureaucrats should be held responsible only in cases where a quid pro quo can be established – that is, a favour or advantage can be shown to be granted to them in return for decisions taken – they are pushing a solution which would help every pliant bureaucrat who doesn’t uphold the larger public interest over what the government of the day tells them to do, as it would insulate them from structures of accountability.

This could be a police officer who accepts his home or chief minister’s order to not stop a riot, a bureaucrat who knowingly fudges air quality data, a mandarin who allows undeserving medical colleges to flourish, or whatever. As we know, the IAS has careerists in its administrative services as well as good officers.

Now, imagine an outcome where the government has to give its consent for prosecution of officers. It is hard to not remember Ashok Khemka at this point. Unlike Gupta, he challenged wrongdoing by his political masters in government repeatedly – and paid for it every single time.

It speaks volumes about the IAS Association that it is far more voluble on Gupta than it ever was on Khemka. And it speaks volumes about us that we fall for all this.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Virat Kohli and Ola come together to improve Delhi's air quality

The onus of curbing air-pollution is on citizens as well

A recent study by The Lancet Journal revealed that outdoor pollution was responsible for 6% of the total disease burden in India in 2016. As a thick smog hangs low over Delhi, leaving its residents gasping for air, the pressure is on the government to implement SOS measures to curb the issue as well as introduce long-term measures to improve the air quality of the state. Other major cities like Mumbai, Pune and Kolkata should also acknowledge the gravitas of the situation.

The urgency of the air-pollution crisis in the country’s capital is being reflected on social media as well. A recent tweet by Virat Kohli, Captain of the Indian Cricket Team, urged his fans to do their bit in helping the city fight pollution. Along with the tweet, Kohli shared a video in which he emphasized that curbing pollution is everyone’s responsibility. Apart from advocating collective effort, Virat Kohli’s tweet also urged people to use buses, metros and Ola share to help reduce the number of vehicles on the road.

In the spirit of sharing the responsibility, ride sharing app Ola responded with the following tweet.

To demonstrate its commitment to fight the problem of vehicular pollution and congestion, Ola is launching #ShareWednesdays : For every ​new user who switches to #OlaShare in Delhi, their ride will be free. The offer by Ola that encourages people to share resources serves as an example of mobility solutions that can reduce the damage done by vehicular pollution. This is the fourth leg of Ola’s year-long campaign, #FarakPadtaHai, to raise awareness for congestion and pollution issues and encourage the uptake of shared mobility.

In 2016, WHO disclosed 10 Indian cities that made it on the list of worlds’ most polluted. The situation necessitates us to draw from experiences and best practices around the world to keep a check on air-pollution. For instance, a system of congestion fees which drivers have to pay when entering central urban areas was introduced in Singapore, Oslo and London and has been effective in reducing vehicular-pollution. The concept of “high occupancy vehicle” or car-pool lane, implemented extensively across the US, functions on the principle of moving more people in fewer cars, thereby reducing congestion. The use of public transport to reduce air-pollution is another widely accepted solution resulting in fewer vehicles on the road. Many communities across the world are embracing a culture of sustainable transportation by investing in bike lanes and maintenance of public transport. Even large corporations are doing their bit to reduce vehicular pollution. For instance, as a participant of the Voluntary Traffic Demand Management project in Beijing, Lenovo encourages its employees to adopt green commuting like biking, carpooling or even working from home. 18 companies in Sao Paulo executed a pilot program aimed at reducing congestion by helping people explore options such as staggering their hours, telecommuting or carpooling. After the pilot, drive-alone rates dropped from 45-51% to 27-35%.

It’s the government’s responsibility to ensure that the growth of a country doesn’t compromise the natural environment that sustains it, however, a substantial amount of responsibility also lies on each citizen to lead an environment-friendly lifestyle. Simple lifestyle changes such as being cautious about usage of electricity, using public transport, or choosing locally sourced food can help reduce your carbon footprint, the collective impact of which is great for the environment.

Ola is committed to reducing the impact of vehicular pollution on the environment by enabling and encouraging shared rides and greener mobility. They have also created flat fare zones across Delhi-NCR on Ola Share to make more environment friendly shared rides also more pocket-friendly. To ensure a larger impact, the company also took up initiatives with City Traffic Police departments, colleges, corporate parks and metro rail stations.

Join the fight against air-pollution by using the hashtag #FarakPadtaHai and download Ola to share your next ride.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Ola and not by the Scroll editorial team.