Commentary/T V R Shenoy

There are bigger scams than Laloo's

Sorry, but I refuse to waste ink and paper commenting on Laloo Prasad Yadav's antics or the contortions of his United front 'comrades' as they try to kick him out. And I have a very good reason for doing so.

The Chief Jester of Bihar is in trouble over the fodder scam, where Rs 9.5 billion disappeared into thin air over a period of five years. But why isn't anyone talking about a scam where Rs 13.05 billion vanished in just one year?

Well, perhaps that isn't entirely correct. The Supreme Court, for one, is interested, thanks to a public interest litigation. And on Monday, April 28, their lordships wanted answers to a very pertinent question on the management of the Indian Bank.

This bank wrote off loans worth Rs 13.05 billion in a single year. Was it really a coincidence that this happened in an election year?

That wasn't one of the questions asked by the Supreme Court. The judges did want to know something else -- just how M Gopalakrishnan, the chairman, managed to get four extensions. An extension is supposed to be granted only under extraordinary circumstances, to people whose talents are of unique value. Does a man who oversaw a loss of Rs 13.05 billion meet the criteria?

Oddly enough, this isn't a new question. Extending Gopalakrishnan's tenure was opposed when the issue came up before the appointments committee of the Cabinet during the Narasimha Rao regime.

The finance minister then, Dr Manmohan Singh, was against it. But he was over-ruled. As usual, he kept quiet. The Reserve Bank of India had detected serious irregularities in the functioning of the Indian Bank. The RBI governor too opposed Gopalakrishnan's extension.

The secretaries committee, which vets such appointments, also concluded it would be unwise to grant the Indian Bank chairman any further lease of office. Even this powerful body of bureaucrats failed to stop Gopalakrishnan's continuance.

In the face of such unanimous opposition, how did the ACC grant Gopalakrishnan no less than four extensions? Who were the patrons so mighty that they could ignore the objections of the finance minister, the RBI and the secretaries committee?

Obviously, Narasimha Rao played a role. Only the prime minister himself can ride over the finance minister's protests. But what were his compulsions? And why did the CBI get rapped on the knuckles when it tried to initiate a probe a good six months after Rao left?

When the CBI tried to take action against Indian Bank Executive Director T P Karunandan, it allegedly led to then prime minister H D Deve Gowda scolding CBI Director Joginder Singh. Singh was apparently told that the CBI had violated the 'single directive' which prohibits the CBI from initiating action against officers above the joint secretary level without the concerned ministry's permission.

To get back to the original question, why was M Gopalakrishnan granted extension after extension despite known irregularities in the functioning of the Indian Bank? When the Supreme Court asked just that, the judges were rebuffed. The attorney-general claimed 'privilege', as if the answer would jeopardise national security.

Happily, the Supreme Court has refused to put up with this nonsense. Privilege or not, we will definitely hear a lot more about this case in the days to come. But take a moment or two to let the effrontery of the claim sink in. Since when has the appointment of the chairman of a nationalised bank become a state secret?

Speaking in the Lok Sabha on April 22, the Tamil Maanila Congress's P Chidambaram had asked the Gujral government to pass certain legislation. This included drastic modification of the Official Secrets Act, and the introduction of a Freedom of Information Bill. Chidambaram now has the opportunity to live up to his words. He is ideally placed to grant permission or a full-fledged CBI probe under the 'single directive'.

In Deve Gowda's day the TMC also held the personnel ministry, which oversees the CBI. I K Gujral kept it vacant for them. Now that the TMC is back in power there should be no problems in ordering an investigation.

Public attention will focus on the fodder scamsters for some time to come. But it shouldn't be a smoke-screen for an even bigger scam.

If the alleged theft of Rs 9.5 billion is a fit subject of investigation, so is a nationalised bank that writes off Rs 13.05 billion -- in return for which its chairman got four extensions!

Tell us what you think of this column