Modi, Corruption and Right to
information (R T I )
Popular aspiration never factored so heavily on a prime
minister nor was any pursued so closely as this, as it waits even after the
completion of two years of his rule to have his mind on the crucial Right to
information (R T I) on the sources of funding of political parties. Talking on
the issue of corruption late Prime minister Rajiv Gandhi had stated that out of
every rupee spent on development only fourteen paise reached the poor .Rajiv
was honest in his admission, but perhaps half so, because he failed to reveal
upon the nation what part of the eighty six paise reached the political coffers
through corrupt bureaucratic deductions . Rahul claims it was the Congress
government that got for the people the Right to Information (R T I) but here
again the intent of the party was half honest because though the Congress brand
of R T I brought the government departments under the law, it left out two
major questionable bodies, the political parties and the BCCI, the latter,
controller of cricket in India, draws its members from all political parties
and stands unanimous against any such intent from any quarter. Modi whose main
plank for last elections was corruption and which he swore he would remove from
the culture of the nation dare not even pick up the eraser, yet.
Politics in India, it appeared was in for a transformation as
the aspirant to the premiership of the democracy sailed on the tsunami.
Corruption, in the backdrop of his rhetorical assurances and chorused by his
party men, appeared, had counted days and the per capita gains of the nation
were to leap by rupees fifteen lakhs. The source of such windfall was to be the
huge sums of unaccounted monies stacked in safe havens abroad which the
aspirant and his men vouched would be brought back in hundred days. The nation,
as he came to power also continued to accept his acronymics as the alternative
for sound economics and within months of forming government the sluggish
economy of his predecessor saw a jump by around two percent through some
jugglery and never had been the fiscal and monetary attitudes of the economy in
such conflict. The real incomes of the people took a downward slide but the
electoral extravagance of the political leaders showed no decline and jumped
from one state election to another with shameless urge. Three chief ministers belonging
to his party and at least three cabinet ministers came under the radar for
alleged charges of corruption but the allegations against these were not taken
note of by the Prime minister in the manner leaders of the opposition continued
to be targeted and hounded. Reason and prudence was seen wanting in equity.
The costs of election gone high the reliance on benefactors
becomes the recourse. But benefactors in democracies do not come without costs
and these costs way heavily on the policies of the state which keeps majority
of the population high and dry, at the mercy of nature and forced to migrate to
urban slums . No party it seems is untouched by the kindness of the backer supporting democracy
and parties in ascending order of popularity and stakes for the post election “good
turn “. The nation’s understanding of
this reality was never obscured and in Modi it perhaps had the first glimpse
and hope of change in sight and a decisive attack on corruption and its
sustainers, for Modi in their reckoning, was one of them who had risen to the
seat of power with a massive mandate majorly composed of the have-nots opposed
to, and victims of corruption. The urgency with which the land bill was sought
to be passed and with such attempt having failed seeing wisdom in ordinance was
some eye opener to the pressure that comes on governments in a situation that
may be the outcome of some quid pro.
The rise of price of
dal from rupees eighty to two hundred and fifty , the emergence of Samaritans
who came forward to reduce the misery of the people by importing the same and
offering it at rupees one hundred and fifty ,in the backdrop of the
government’s failure to explain why despite no gains to the farmer who got the
same low price for his produce as the preceding year, the prices spiraled, nor did the Samaritans give a fuller
explanation of the unusual growth trajectory of such price rise and the
difference of seventy rupees between the earlier and the proposed benevolent
price, the answer again perhaps lay in the quid pro quo, You do it for me, I
shall do it for you.
Why, it seems Modi would refrain from touching this hornets’
nest, is the reason that given the unanimity of the corrupt which transcends
all barriers, the same may pose a major threat to his leadership both within the
party and without, and this is the big price Modi , will have to figure out whether he, as the people’s
prime minister is ready to pay. But Modi
is a great leader who has the potential to achieve the unachievable. He may not have the support in the Rajya Sabha
and he may not have the support of his party men but all opposition to any move
of the Prime minister to bring political parties and their sources of funding
under the R T I would only expose the corrupt and establish Modi as a true
unparalleled patriot. And should he not, history would record him as another Prime
minister on the side of the corrupt. A
conscientious Prime minister in such cause would be required to follow his
conscience and stand distinct from the corrupt.
Modi as an ideal leader with an unblemished personal record
should realize that that History records his stance on the issue of the Right
of Information for crucial insight into party funding and the quid pro quo that
may lie as conditions for such patronage. The Prime minister’s position thus far
on this issue has in no way been better than his predecessor who would continue
to be questioned for his silence on matters of corruption that occurred during
his tenure with the allowance of course, of the footnote, that his tenure saw
his cabinet ministers charged of corruption forced to cool their heels in the
Tihar Jail and some chief ministers forced to quit office. Modi so far, has been seen, to turn a blind
eye to the ministers against whom serious charges of corruption exist. R T I
would save the Prime Minister and all his successors from such embarrassing
situations as it would reveal to the sovereign all that may run contrary to
trust and would not bring Prime ministers of later times to such cross roads.
