Opinion is divided on whether Prime Minister Manmohan Singh refurbished his image after addressing television editors on February 16 and his session with five senior editors from the print media on June 29. While there are some who argue that Dr Singh came out of the media interactions appearing more sincere and in complete

charge, others contend that he ended up raising more doubts about the current state of cleanliness of his government.
Now in his eighth year as head of the world’s largest democracy, nobody questions Dr Singh’s personal integrity. But that’s no longer the germane issue. He may be squeaky clean but under his watch the corrupt became brazen and corruption grew to alarming proportions. For example, in the second generation (2G) spectrum scam, Dr Singh is being perceived to have turned a blind eye to what was happening around him for three long years.
His explanation that he did not deem it necessary to interfere in the policies and procedures that were followed (while allocating scarce spectrum on a first-come-first-served basis) is not convincing. The analogy that he drew to justify why spectrum had been deliberately under-priced — by drawing comparisons with subsidies on foodgrain, fertilisers and kerosene — did not go down very well with many. And his contention that former Union communications and information technology minister Andimuthu Raja’s appointment for a second term was because of the compulsions of coalition politics has arguably not bolstered his image as a person in command over a fractious, multi-party coalition government.
After his June 29 meeting with editors from the print media, there were a few avoidable goofs. If indeed Dr Singh made a few statements on Muslim fundamentalists in Bangladesh that were supposed to be off the record, there is no reason why these statements should have appeared on his official website (even for a brief while). This kind of bureaucratic inefficiency or negligence is difficult to pardon, even if one is charitable (in this day and age of voice-recognition software) about the many hours it took for the transcript of the press conference to enter the public domain.
One aspect, did, however, come through rather loud and clear. Dr Singh is clearly unsettled by the recent findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. This was evident from what he said right upfront in his opening remarks before questions were put to him. Here’s an excerpt: “We live in a world of uncertainty and ex-post, whether it is the CAG, whether it is a Parliamentary Committee then they analyse post-facto. They have a lot more facts that were not available to those who took the decision. I am not saying that it is not possible that some people may deliberately do wrong things, but in many cases it would turn out in that sort of a scenario it is very difficult to operate. So we must create in this country an environment in which governments, ministers and civil servants will not be discouraged from taking decisions in the national interest when all facts are not known; they will never be known. We take decisions in a world of uncertainty and that’s the perspective I think Parliament, our CAG and our media must adopt if this nation is to move forward”.
On the draft CAG report on how the government allegedly favoured Reliance Industries, among other companies, while putting together a contract to extract natural gas found in the Krishna-Godavari (KG) basin, Dr Singh said, “Well, I think the CAG also leaks. It is not the function of the CAG… it has never been the case that the CAG has held a press conference as the present CAG has done. But nobody is commenting on all this. It is not right for the CAG to go into issues that are not their concern; it is not the CAG’s business to comment on policy issues. I think they should limit themselves to the mandate given under the Constitution. We are now a permissive society. I think if the media can get away with murder so can the CAG”.
These remarks are, in the humble opinion of this correspondent, completely unwarranted. First, there is a 2005 judgment of the Madras high court upholding the right of the CAG and its functionaries to brief the media on the contents of reports presented either in Parliament or in state legislatures. Secondly, it was not the CAG himself (Vinod Rai) but his deputy (Rekha Gupta) who briefed the media on November 16 last year — the day the CAG’s report on the 2G spectrum scam was tabled in Parliament and a day before Mr Raja was forced to put in his papers, kicking and screaming. In the past too, officials from the CAG’s office have formally briefed journalists.
Thirdly — and this is the most substantive point — it cannot be Dr Singh’s claim that the CAG should keep mum if a policy of the government results in a huge loss to the exchequer. A constitutional authority like the CAG cannot surely remain silent if a so-called government policy is deliberately twisted out of shape to favour a select group of firms.
In all honesty, one is far from convinced that the scams relating to allocation of 2G spectrum and KG gas were on account of decisions taken without adequate information — they seem to clearly be a result of deliberate dereliction of duty by rogue elements in the government.
Dr Singh is also being a tad economical with the truth when he states that the letters that had been written to him on excess expenditure being incurred on the Commonwealth Games by former sports minister Mani Shankar Aiyar were a consequence of the latter’s “ideological opposition” to “so much money” being spent on the Games.
Yes, Indian society has indeed become permissive, but not so much on account of the media and the CAG. Believing that would be running away from reality.

The author is an educator and commentator