Given the rapid change in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) stance on whether the Samajwadi Party chief, Mulayam Singh Yadav, has assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that CBI inquiries too often are politics by other means. The same CBI had argued for the last two years that there was a strong case against Mr Yadav. The question virtually asks itself: Has the CBI changed its stance on the matter after the Samajwadi chief decided to support the United Progressive Alliance government? It is worth observing that one of the judges hearing the case in the Supreme Court was so upset at the CBI’s about-turn, he said God alone could help the country if this was how its premier intelligence agency behaved.
If the thesis were to be put forward that the CBI has a tendency to come into play when an opponent of the government has to be turned into a friend, or when a friend is about to turn into an enemy, there would be no shortage of ammunition to buttress the argument. It cannot be a coincidence that the case against the CPI(M)’s Kerala Secretary, Pinarayi Vijayan, in connection with the SNC Lavalin deal comes up repeatedly when elections are to be announced for Parliament, the state legislature or local bodies. Or that the Taj Corridor case against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati gets put on the backburner or moved forward depending on the state of the country’s politics. The same can be said about the corruption cases against politicians such as Parkash Singh Badal of the Akali Dal in Punjab.
Two or three comments are worth making. First, about a hundred members of Parliament and an even greater number of state legislators have some kind of criminal record. Many of these could be frivolous cases, but many are more serious affairs — witness the conviction the other day of the former communications minister, Sukh Ram, in a corruption case. Given such a field in which to fight, it is easy to see that the threat of prosecutorial action is a weapon that the government can use at will, if it is so inclined. Second, the CBI has a poor track record of getting convictions, especially in high-profile cases with political overtones (starting with Bofors). In a perverse sort of way, this frees the Bureau to move in any and all directions, since it does not have the burden of maintaining a good success rate on the cases it handles.
It is obvious that this situation cries out or reform, especially when other steps are being taken to clean up the system. Election candidates are now obliged to declare their assets. The Right to Information (RTI) law allows ordinary citizens to find out how and why politicians and bureaucrats acted when dealing with various contracts or cases. What is needed to complete the circle is an arm that can initiate cases and pursue instances of corruption, without political interference. This can be done only if the CBI is made immune to the government of the day, which means that it must not report to the home minister. Perhaps a leaf can be taken out of the American book, where some agencies report directly to Congress; or the French example could be followed, whereby such an agency would be under the magistracy, not the political executive. The point is that if those in power want to work out a superior model, it will not be difficult to do so. The question, of course, is why any political executive would want to give up power in this fashion. The answer can only be the power of public opinion, and determination on the part of politicians who have been wronged by today’s system.