Arun Jaitley, the Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha, has very categorically and confidently analyzed (in the Hindu dated Tuesday, August 28, 2012) the role of the Indian Prime Minister without mentioning his name even once. It is perhaps in reply to the stand taken by P.M in the Parliament House addressing the media. His first sentence in the article says that the parliamentary stalemate continues on one of the greatest corruption scandals in Indian history. This fact is of course subject to legal and Parliamentary scrutiny over a period of time. His observation is that despite the need for the definite role of private sector in mineral-based industries in the country, allocation of natural resources should not be based on discretionary decisions enabling corrupt and collateral motives. The objective criteria should be introduced for this purpose.
Way back when the natural resources were nationalized and allotted to the public sector companies, the first-come first serve principle was followed. Little by little the private sector entered the field and the same principle continued to be applied. In the absence of a ceiling on the acquisition of natural resources looking to the need and capacity of the applicant the resources were allocated on the same principle. But when there was a beeline with all sorts of applicants in the queue the discretion became the order of the day. But all said and done, perfect machinery or a perfect agency or authority is a hard thing to be found these days. Hence even Mr. Clean status has not spared the individual from the blame and criticism anymore. Greed has entered the mind of every corporate house or a new industrial entrepreneur and not prevented them from aspiring for more and more. Speculation and scope for encashment of the grant or license / lease has goaded many a person to stand in the queue for favors on a price or a lesser price.
The P.M says that any allegations of impropriety on the so-called ‘coal-gate’ are without basis and unsupported by the facts. He further goes to say that the observations of the CAG are clearly disputable. He further asserts that the premise of CAG that competitive bidding could have been introduced in 2006 by amending the existing administrative instructions is flawed. Good, if this is flawed, then the PM and his PMO should scrap all the disciplinary proceedings either cleared off or being cleared at their end on the basis of investigations made by several agencies or departments should be filed at once and exonerate those unfortunate ones pleading not guilty by several representations which of course fell on their deaf ears so far. Otherwise they should also undergo similar proceedings before they are declared innocent and transparent in their decisions. Democratic system never allows two different yardsticks to different sets of people – one for influential and the other for non-influential.
The PM pleads that the price of coal based on bidding would push up the cost of power as argued by Ministry of Power. Who has got the control over pricing of different building raw materials even now although many cement plants got acres of bauxite mines for a small royalty payment to the state exchequer? What about diesel, petrol or kerosene price? Do we have any control? Don’t we see increased number of vehicles plying on the roads? Poor farmers are not getting enough prices for the crops they raise. Days are not far off before we totally stop producing food grains and start looking for imports to feed our citizens and the cattle heads. People are not there to work on the fields, factories and other establishments.
Production of coal is no doubt in short supply but there are other ways by which one could have solved the problem of gap in demand and supply but the way in which the coal blocks have been allotted is no proper solution at all. CAG is an auditor appointed by the President of India like any other constitutional authority and he is equally responsible to uphold the traditions of good governance like judiciary fully competent enough to pinpoint the loopholes in our thinking and policy-decisions. If one wing of administration doesn’t agree then there should be a way for explanation before the Parliament and the public in general. It is always the duty of the auditor to raise unpleasant questions and seek answers and any public functionary is bound to get irritated on its working. When there is scope for bungling and misuse of authority in any office or organization, he has to point out the alternative ways of handling things in such a way that the public money is not wasted or drained into others’ pockets by inappropriate means.
Jaitley is also right when he questions the PM on the point of federal polity and democratic compulsions. If PM comes out with a policy option that would not only take care of the states’ royalty incomes but also the local developmental requirements, bidding process would have received the approval of states as well as other opposition parties. That would have been a better position today and earned the opprobrium from all quarters. As Jaitley notes there has been some amount of reluctance on the part of PMO to push thro, the bidding process from the beginning. Initially on September 11, 2004 the PMO circulated a note highlighting the drawbacks in the decision of competitive bidding despite an initial policy decision taken already in June 2004.
