First Ratan Tata and then Deepak Parekh — two respected figures from corporate India — have gone public to express apprehensions that phone-tapping by the government can potentially scare away overseas investors. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has done well to respond to the anxieties that have been expressed. The political class is expected to be sensitive to opinions articulated by responsible sections of opinion. (BJP stalwart L.K. Advani should be too instead of taking a swipe at the PM.) Given Dr Singh’s credentials — as India’s first reformer finance minister — we can straightaway take him at face value when he says his government wishes to “provide a level playing field for private businesses, free from fear or favour”. In a way this says everything: businesses may operate without fear but may expect no particular favour (where breach of the law or ethics are concerned). This is a fair observation, one to which most Indians are likely to be sympathetic.
The Prime Minister notes that he is aware of the “nervousness in some sections of the corporate sector” — clearly he does not believe that the anxiety is universal — arising out of the powers conferred upon the government to tap phones for protecting national security and preventing tax evasion and money-laundering. It might be worth noting that the corporate world had not expressed any worries earlier about the government’s powers to listen in to conversations in the public good, as defined by the law. If their concerns arise from the single instance of the Niira Radia tapes, then was it really warranted on their part to generalise the issue as though we had an across-the-board problem? Further, those who are nervous have not shown that tapping of Ms Radia’s phone conversations occurred in a specified environment, which if not checked can degenerate into a general problem. The broad question is: if the problem is not widespread, or threatening to become large-scale, what are we talking about?
At the same, the government also needs to visibly demonstrate to the people of this country that it was actually propelled by national security, tax evasion or money-laundering considerations when its investigators decided to snoop on Ms Radia’s conversations. “Leaks” to the media suggesting that Ms Radia was/is a “foreign spy” will simply not do; indeed, these remind us of unsavoury police methods. The Supreme Court quite rightly sought from the government the exact orders that led to the tracking of Ms Radia’s phone calls, and it is now for the government to give a satisfactory answer. If it is not able to do so, Mr Tata’s plea on the key question of invasion of privacy of individuals is likely to acquire grater salience. The Radia tapes have produced a wealth of material that tells us something about the fallen state of sections of the rich and powerful in our country. But this does not mean that the government can simply tap anyone’s phone without having a demonstrably good reason in line with the law. This is where the Prime Minister’s assurance comes in — that his government will abide strictly by the procedures laid down in the law. The Cabinet Secretary has been given a month’s time to determine if these procedures are followed and were observed in the Radia case. Dr Singh has obviously taken this step to instill greater confidence in those who have worries about breach of privacy. It is necessary, therefore, that the Cabinet Secretary’s findings are made public. The government also needs to assure us that it will quickly acquire the technical capability to deter private entities from tapping phones, and that the government itself does not use technologies that unscrupulous elements do to spy on political adversaries and others.