Integrity, non-est in India

So the Supreme Court says the decision to appoint P.J. Thomas as Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) is “non-est” in law. The Vigilance Commission is the “Integrity Commission of India”, it says solemnly, and must be headed by an unblemished person with impeccable integrity.

Oops. I suspect that recommending an untainted person with impeccable integrity to head the corruption-control commission is “non-est” in Indian politics. Seriously, in a country driven as much by corruption as by law, which political party would want an utterly upright chap with flawless integrity, one who cannot be influenced by netas and political expediencies, to head the Vigilance Commission? Which suicidal ministers would take pains to instil a thorn in the flesh of robust corruption that drives Indian democracy? Would you want to give someone who doesn’t respect your secrets the key to your cupboard of skeletons?
The very fact that the earlier CVC had cleared the palmolein-tainted bureaucrat Mr Thomas’ candidature for CVC reveals the anti-corruption body’s own limitations in fighting the hydra-headed monster it is up against. “We had to trust the earlier CVC”, lamented law minister Veerappa Moily. “We believed in the system. That system has failed.”
Wonder why our leaders continue to “believe in the system” when nobody else in the country does. According to Transparency International, India has an integrity score of 3.3, which makes it one of the most corrupt nations of the world. And, of course, our politicians lead the pack in this race of crooks.
In fact, in his defence the CVC had claimed that making a fuss over his appointment makes no sense when hardcore criminals are allowed to be lawmakers. “Twenty-eight per cent members of Parliament (MPs) — 153 of 543 (in the Lok Sabha) — face charges of various kinds, 54 face serious criminal charges, including murder”, said the CVC’s counsel K.K. Venugopal. “And unfortunately they are the very persons who make laws for us.”
Several MPs, even facing murder charges, had become ministers, he argued. And it’s not just being chargesheeted — MPs and MLAs (members of the Legislative Assembly) can hold office and are not disqualified even on conviction if the sentence is less than two years. “If the issue of suitability was allowed to be introduced by way of judicial verdict, then it would open a Pandora’s box as all executive appointments would become subject to various objective factors…” the counsel had warned.
Which may not displease the Supreme Court, under the formidable Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia. “We want to lay down the law for the future”, the court had warned. And it clearly wishes to foreground the issue of probity in public life. Integrity is important, it reminds us, both for an institution and for the individual.
Indian democracy is already facing a steady erosion of legitimacy. Murderers, rapists, thieves and crooks of all kinds power the system which may or may not prop up a few relatively honest leaders to save face. Killer dacoits and goons rule the cow belt of north India, other goons and fraudsters pretty much run the system elsewhere as well.
In every election, almost all our political parties field candidates with criminal links, if not a clear-cut criminal past. As a voter, you cannot change the system satisfactorily because you don’t have a real choice. Choosing between several corrupt and criminalised political parties and candidates is not good enough. There have been repeated demands to debar criminals and history-sheeters from contesting elections, but no political power has the guts and muscle to pursue it.
To change the system that our trusting law minister feels so let down by, we need to change its nuts and bolts. And this SC ruling may be the beginning of that radical, sweeping change.
The new Chief Justice of India (CJI) shows every sign of being committed to cleaning up the system. Chief Justice Kapadia has also revived the police reforms case from half-a-decade’s stupor, trying to get states to implement the reforms that would ease the politician’s grip on the police force, instil accountability, reduce corruption and help the system work more efficiently.
So it is not surprising that the Supreme Court, led by this CJI, would push for a transparent system that focuses on integrity and probity in public life. And if it is a problem seeking out suitably honest bureaucrats, cast your net wider, it ruled. “No reason has been given as to why in the present case the zone of consideration stood restricted only to the civil service”, the court stated. “In future, the zone of consideration shall not be restricted to civil servants. All the civil servants and other persons empanelled shall be outstanding civil servants or persons of impeccable integrity.” In short, don’t just look for babus, look for a suitable, principled, honest person.
But can the nation get a fearless, honest head of this supreme anti-corruption body? Will the honest Abdul not be bumped off as s/he digs into the murky world of the corrupt and powerful? Not necessarily, especially if the police reforms are in place. Unlike all the fearless Right to Information activists being killed around the country, the CVC will hopefully have reliable protection.
And where will such a flawlessly sincere officer come from? With the playing field opened up to non-bureaucrats, the possibilities are wide-ranging and exciting. Efficient, dedicated and honest candidates could come from any profession, from law to academia. They are not “non-est” in larger life. They do exist.
But if that’s too much of a hassle, there are easier ways to overcome this stumbling block of “impeccable integrity”. The most convenient, of course, would be to define the term clearly. Harry Houdini had once said, “In the many years that I have been before the public my secret methods have been steadily shielded by the strict integrity of my assistants, most of whom have been with me for years”. Happily, such “strict integrity” is not very difficult to find in our political world. And the Pandora’s box that the CVC’s counsel warned about may remain shut — and all may be well.
Unless our netas join the game, the radical systemic reform can only come about if powerful political parties take a cue from the Supreme Court’s ruling and bestir themselves. And decide to keep their customary, perpetual promise to fight corruption.

Antara Dev Sen is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted at: sen@littlemag.com