As a nation, India has had a pay a very heavy price for the acquisition of this medium artillery weapons system: that price is not in dollars. Swedish kroner or even in rupees; it is in the erosion of the moral authority of the office (and the person) of the Prime Minister, indeed in the moral authority of the state as such. The other, insupportable last has been the mindless destruction of institutions, some willfully because they became politically inconvenient, like Parliament (that farce of a JPC), or currently the CAG; others by misemployment like the Cabinet system of governance (never consulted) or the CBI, now reduced to being any extension of parochial interests; and yet others, by a trickle-down effect, too numerous to illustrate.

In the recent “discussion” on the CAG’s report on Bofors, however, a new low has been witnessed. This is not an occasion for going into the consequences of playing with the Public Accounts Committee, or the wholesale resignation of the entire Opposition from the Lok Sabha (an unprecedented event) or the wholly partisan manner in which a great issue of the day, far transcending, in its consequences, mere corruption, has been handled. Central to the discussion is this deliberate “assault”, as it were, on the office, and indeed the pension of the CAG.

In which context, it is not my intention to refer to the unforgivable intemperance of some of the utterances such as, for example, that of the Deputy Leader of the Congress (I) in the Rajya Sabha, N.K.P.Salve, wherein he referred to the CAG as “that Charlie”, or give voice to expressions such as “kick up the bottom”. It is equally futile commenting on the poverty of Vasant Sathe’s debating skills wherein he played with derision on the word “general” in the CAG’s nomenclature, by asking, “perhaps, he thinks he is one”. The two substantial attempts that were made, to shed light on the issues involved, were of course by the Defence Minister himself, K.C.Pant, and then by the Minister of State for Home, P.Chidambaram.

But first, a few words about the office of the CAG itself in the words of B.R.Ambedkar “the office of the CAG is perhaps the most important institution of the Republic”. The CAG is “not an officer of Parliament”. He is appointed under the seal of President. He is, of course, appointed by the Government, but he is not, therefore, automatically expected to be “for the Government”. His reports, “without fear or favour”, are submitted to the President, who then causes them to be laid on the table of the two Houses of Parliament. When so laid, they are by rules and by convention, treated as “automatically referred to the Public Accounts Committee of our Parliament”. Yes, that very Committee whose chairmanship, in a major departure from convention, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha awarded to a “captive member” of the ruling party.

Parliament can, of course, discuss anything that finds a place on its tables. But just as the presidency or the justices of the courts are not discussed, so also is not the CAG. And, for a very good reason in discussion is implicit approbation or condemnation; an acceptance or rejection of presidential action, of the conduct of justices, as indeed, of the findings of the CAG. If Parliament should choose to sit in judgement over the CAG, then this office loses its “independent constitutional authority”, and becomes a plaything of political partisanship. This is what the combined Opposition did not want to happen; and that, unfortunately, is exactly what came to pass.

Before coming to which, however, a word about the assertions of P.Chidambaram. The honourable Minister of State, in a fairly lengthy and legalistic peroration, put forward his difficulties when it comes to dealing with the Swiss, cautioned against the perils of amateur “investigations”, journalistic or otherwise, asking the people to leave it all to the CBI instead. He highlighted the certificates that this agency has obtained from various old characters such as Maj.Wilson of A & E Services that “no Indians are involved”; which he then reduced to very dense bureaucratese “No Indian, or legally recognizable Indian identify” and so on.

WORRISOME DOUBTS

Two very worrisome doubts remain. Why did the CBI address this “letter rogatory” or whatever, to the Swiss federal authorities, specifying or suggesting “tax evasion” as the issue, when it knows fully well that that (tax evasion) is not recognized under Swiss law as sufficient cause for breaching bank secrecy? Why did it not, instead, go in for “fraud, or bribery, or criminal misappropriation, which are?”

Secondly, when with this “letter rogatory” the CBI annexed a complaint that “Anatronics Corp. was connected with Svenska Inc. “then why has it permitted Win Chadha of this very Anatronics/Svenska quietly to slip out of India? Why has he not yet been charged for a single offence relating to the Bofors deal?

And that is where the arguments of the Defence Minister come in. Pant endeavored to defend the indefensible. Amongst others, he made the following insupportable points:

1. The CAG might not directly report to Parliament, but he is not, in consequence “above it”.
2. Therefore the CAG cannot “override” the report of the Joint Parliamentary committee, even if this Committee were a captive one, and its report tutored, and even if the CAG had categorically, and in writing, asserted that, the Constitutional obligation of examining the issue later remained intact.
3. The third point that the Defence Minister made was that the CAG has not the competence to judge “technical” matters; they are thus best left to the ‘technicians’. Getting carried away by this line of reasoning the Defence Minister went to the extent of suggesting that the CAG ought to confine itself to mere examination of accounts, a mere arithmetical tabulation of figures, that is.
4. Because of all this, it is the Defence Minister’s view that the offending paragraphs of the CAG’s report be “treated as deleted”.

As has been commented since Walter Bagehot’s days, when a parliamentary form of Government turns sectarian, it becomes, possibly, the worst form of any. The manner in which the Bofors controversy has been handled clearly exemplifies that observation. The first two points of the Defence Minister stand answered by the very constitutional nature of the office of the CAG. It is not a question of being “above” or of “overriding”: it is the vital necessity of having such pillars in the edifice of the republic, as would independently judge issues. Even as a debating points, this assertion of Pant is feeble in the extreme.

The other two are extremely worrisome. The office of the CAG is organized to examine all aspects during its audit. Even company auditors do not content themselves with a mere check of figures; they do examine, and also certify that all the necessary regulations and laws have been compiled with. The CAG’s office has the technical competence to examine the most complex of executive decision-making. And mind you, they are making it on the basis of the documents submitted by the executive itself, and also after their replies. To suggest otherwise is to reduce the office of the CAG into a nullity.

How can any meaningful audit of any department of the Government be carried out without an in-depth investigation into the systems of management? Hence, of the decision-making process? That is precisely what the CAG has done, in language of great moderation. If there is, in the process, an indictment of the executive, well then that is part of the essential checks and balances of the Constitution. For the Defence Minister to suggest, therefore, that the offending paragraphs of the report be deleted by Parliament, is an extremely dangerous suggestion. It amounts to a willful “assassination” of the pillar of our republic. And for what? For Bofors? That is why I said we have had to pay a very heavy price for the gun.