Dealing with corruption: Indian and Lankan ways

We are Sri Lankans. We don’t take bribes! Just look at our exemplary statistics on bribery and corruption since 52 years of Independence. How many of our top notchers – politicians and bureaucrats – have been convicted of these offences? Even veteran journalists can’t recall those who have been convicted other than a very few in the late fifties and early sixties. And that too for paltry amounts. There were one or two cases tried in the late seventies but these were said to be inspired by political skulduggery and the accused were acquitted.

Statistics on bribery and corruption conceal much more than what is revealed – the converse of the bikini – as the saying goes. During these days when the budget is being debated, cynics may draw parallels between those of the Central Bank and statistics on bribery and corruption, which is unfair by statisticians of bribery or corruption. The numbers convicted of bribery and corruption have indeed been negligible, if one ignores the petty clerk, peon or hospital attendant convicted.

But bribery and corruption at higher levels has been rampant in post-Independent Sri Lanka. It is the salt and pepper – ‘lunu ambul’ – of Colombo’s gossip. How much a powerful politico made on a foreign contract, the kickback received by a corporation chairman for a massive state contract etc. are what keeps the drawing room and conversation in social clubs going.

During the austere days of mixed socialism or mixed capitalism, the amounts involved were meagre. A one hundred thousand rupees was considered a princely sum – a possessor of cash or property amounting to a lakh being called a Lakshapathiya. Today, even millionaires are dime a dozen, every owner of a middle class home in Colombo being well worth over a million rupees. Deals then were over dry fish and supplies to co-operatives but came the open economy in 1977 and standards of bribery and corruption reached those of western nations. Massive contracts on irrigation, power, highways, telecommunications etc. resulted in the emergence of whispers of Mr. Five per cent and Mr. Ten per cent collecting billions abroad. There were whispers of villas in Portugal, residences in London’s plush residential quarters, farms and orchards in salubrious climes.

The People’s Alliance, when in the opposition, made bribery and corruption of UNP governments, a main prong of attack. Its 1994 manifesto said: ‘The emergence of a political system pervaded by insatiable greed and manifest lack of scruples stand today as a grotesque monument to 17 years of power wielded by the UNP’. On being elected, the PA appointed a Permanent Bribery Commission as its first act in office. But what followed was a grotesque tragi-comedy. The first report of the Special Bribery Commission was not tabled before parliament as required and one of the Bribery Commissioners resigned. Then the Commission and a highly placed official of the commission locked horns and the commission became totally paralysed till the PA’s term of office was over. Now, again a new commission has been appointed and the public will watch its performance.

Bribery and corruption may be a legacy of our colonial heritage. There would have been no qualms in robbing and playing out our conquerors but Independence has not resulted in patriotism getting the better of personal greed. In the South Asian sub- continent, bribery and corruption is rampant. The corruption scandal that has burst out in New Delhi, where the chief of India’s ruling party, Mr. Bangaru Laxman, has resigned on allegations of taking bribes to influence arms procurement, and has inspired this editorial. India’s Defence Minister, Mr. George Fernandes, too, has offered to resign, but his resignation has been refused by his cabinet colleagues.

While India and Sri Lanka may have inherited this legacy of corrupt practices in public office, there is a difference between the two countries: The Indian tradition of ministers and officials accepting responsibility and transparency once an issue is brought into the open. Indian ministers, true to Westminster tradition, accept responsibility and tender their resignations, be it even a railway accident. This is something unheard of in this country. There is only one incident in Sri Lanka, in recent times, the Tawakkal issue, where opposition allegations led to a parliamentary debate. But no resignations were tendered.

India far surpasses us of moving into action once charges are made. A former Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao, has been convicted of accepting bribes while even former Prime Minister, the late Rajiv Gandhi, is still being investigated for his part on the Bofors gun deal. This is an outstanding aspect of the vibrancy of Indian democracy. This accountability has been mainly brought about by the independent Indian media, particularly the press. It successfully resisted attempts to muzzle it by the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay and continues to expose corruption and rackets. This independence of the Indian press could be mainly attributed to its sub-continental spread – stretching from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin unlike in this country where two to three independent newspaper groups and private TV stations can be brought under great pressure.

The current Indian furore is of great relevance to Sri Lanka because the allegations are over procurement of arms. In Sri Lanka there are loud whispers of shady deals running into billions of rupees on crooked arms deals involving top politicians and bureaucrats, but the press is prevented from reporting on such arms deals under emergency regulations! India is hypersensitive about secrecy regarding its security forces but permits such exposures on corrupt arms deals.

Does the current censorship protect the security of the country or the security of certain individuals?

Your comments to the Editor