Former Comptroller and Auditor General TN Chaturvedi tells Aditi Phadnis and Akshat Kaushal that politicisation of constitutional posts is on the rise
A Union minister and a Congress office-bearer have launched an attack on the work of the CAG on the auction of 2G spectrum and the methodology used to calculate the presumptive loss. Are you getting a sense of déjà vu? As the CAG who inquired into the procurement of Bofors guns, you were a target of the then government. Is it the messenger who tends to get shot?
Yes, there are striking similarities between then and now in the attitude of the government to an inconvenient Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report. I was the CAG when an inquiry was initiated into the purchase of 155-mm howitzer guns — Bofors as they are popularly known. Our report was a collective effort by the department. We found irregularities in the procurement process and pointed these out.
We found then – and the government has learnt nothing from that experience – that there was a tendency to treat constitutional positions, which are part of the checks and balances system of governance, as opposition entities. Governments either want to bring them under control or tend to use all their might and muscle to browbeat individuals occupying the office.
The CAG has a big responsibility. BR Ambedkar said it is the most important institution in the government, because it acts as the regulator of the purse of the government and reports to Parliament. The CAG is not a handmaiden of the government.
References have been made at various levels of the official hierarchy to supposed leaks of the 2G spectrum report. The system is such that while the CAG tries to preserve the confidentiality of documents. If it reaches a conclusion that an inquiry is warranted on the basis of documents that the government itself has provided, it gives the government a chance to rebut the CAG and give its explanation. It is a different matter whether the CAG accepts the arguments or not. But the government’s views do get reflected in the report. The CAG’s report is not a political document. It is an administrative document, which analyses the working of programmes and departments, and everything is based on official documents.
When the Bofors report was under preparation, I found the same syndrome. It happened to be the first report on the likelihood of leakage and corruption in the defence forces. I found I was under attack, even personally. A smear campaign was launched against me. People were approached to write articles against me – in fact, all this happened even before the report was submitted. A national newspaper wrote how as home secretary, I had allowed foreigners to overstay. But nobody believed all this. I hadn’t seen Murli Manohar Joshi’s (BJP leader) face. I knew VP Singh’s elder brother but didn’t really knew him. But it was said I was doing their bidding…speeches were made about me in Parliament. NKP Salve referred to me as a ‘proper Charlie’. I didn’t know what this meant. I went to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and requested him to expunge these references. They were expunged from the Rajya Sabha records, but continue to be part of the Lok Sabha records. A Congress member, the present governor of Orissa, whom I knew, wrote two articles in a newspaper attacking me.
My phones were tapped and the children sometimes used to lose their temper and use language that college children use when provoked. An R&AW officer used to accompany me whenever I went abroad. I am an easygoing person and so I never had any problem with them. But my colleagues and officers warned me that I should be careful. It was all done through suggestion and innuendo and we were all put under enormous pressure.
I believe it is not a matter of individuals but institutions which are there to stay and must be protected. The question is, can the government be allowed to denigrate an institution which must be supported and maintained because it serves Parliament itself?
Is the government tending more and more to vet people it appoints to these posts, opting for people who are ‘friendly’?
Yes, the government is undermining the institutions. It sees them as something which challenge its authority, whereas they exist to assist it.
But one argument is that you accepted the membership of a political party after being appointed to a constitutional position. How do you react to that?
This is not quite correct. One of my predecessors, S Ranganathan, was supported by the Congress. This practice has been going since the time of Jawaharlal Nehru. Even now the Congress follows this practice. Arjun Singh, who was a governor, was appointed the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh. The same is true of N N Vohra
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
The precedent was set before me. Moreover, the Constitution doesn’t say anywhere that I cannot accept the membership of a political party. I have the right to do so. If I have done wrong, then someone must point out how I have violated the Constitution.
I joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That doesn't mean that I have to accept everything the BJP says. Many leaders of the BJP have criticised me.
In an interview, Kapil Sibal has put the CAG in the dock by saying that the department was irresposible in leaking the report
I will not give much credence to this. I don't think the report was leaked from the CAG. The report was leaked at the stage of the draft report and it seems someone in the government did it, as they were afraid of its consequences. The office of the CAG doesn’t interact with the press that much to do such things.
The CAG is looking into the Commonwealth Games and a former CAG has been appointed to conduct a parallel inquiry...
I find this distinctly odd. What is the distinction between the work of the CAG and Shunglu? Why did the government have to appoint a person to whom no documents will be sent by the CAG?
You must have read the 2G spectrum report. What do you think of it ?
How do you value airwaves ? It is not like you are putting a value to cadmium or nickel. The report says there has been a loss. We also know that the prime minister knew there was going to be a loss to the government but at the last moment just looked the other way. It was like Dronacharya or Bheeshma during the disrobing of Draupadi.
And about Mr Sibal, why did it take him two years to reach this conclusion about the CAG report? Why didn’t he tell the prime minister? My advice to Sibal is to admit that he has made a mistake in attacking the CAG.
Whoever advised the prime minister not to appear before the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) gave him wrong advice. As finance minister, he had appeared before the JPC in the Harshad Mehta scam. That was the first time a minister deposed before the JPC.
