The ambivalence of a pro-active CBI

It was a coincidence that two ministers, Ashwani Kumar and Pawan Kumar Bansal, were caught on the wrong foot because of their brush with the much-maligned CBI. In the case of Kumar, CBI director Ranjit Sinha had blurted out, more by design than through absent-mindedness, to the Supreme Court that the draft status report on the coal scam was shown to the law minister and to an official each in the prime minister’s office (PMO) and the coal ministry as desired by them. Apparently, it is being whispered in the corridors of power, Kumar snubbed and insulted Sinha and the faceless bureaucrat could not any more take it lying down. He had his revenge by squealing the truth.

In the case of Bansal, it is now emerging that the CBI had accidentally stumbled upon the ministerial connection. The real target was Mahesh Kumar, the railway board member who had allegedly paid a bribe to Bansal’s nephew to get to be board member (electrical). Kumar was on the radar of Sinha, those in the know say, because they had a brush with each other when Sinha was moved out of the post of director-general of the Railway Protection Force (RPF). Again, an old score was settled.

The outcome in both instances was legitimate and it served the ends of justice. The law minister had no business to change an investigation report, and the railway minister’s money trail was revealed.

Sinha is sure to reject that there was a personal angle to the two cases and claim that the agency just did what was expected of it. It told the truth to the apex court and it nabbed the middle man giving money to the railway minister’s nephew on behalf of a railway board member. It was all in a day’s job.

There is clamour from all sides that the CBI should be free of governmental and political interference. This is not however the view of the Supreme Court. The court cautiously recognises that the CBI is part of the governmental structure, but it wants the independence of the investigation agency to be restricted to the investigation process.

There is a naïve belief among many activists and ardent reformers that if bureaucrats and police officers are left alone, they would do an honest job, without fear or favour. The officers in India, as perhaps anywhere else in the world, are men and women of flesh and blood, and they are part of the power games that are constantly played in the governmental and political circles. All that one can hope for is that if the system is good enough and the officers, irrespective of the personal biases were to stay close to the system, fair play would prevail and truth will out.

Without raising too much alarm, it has to be recognised that an untethered and free CBI can both be a blessing and a nightmare. The witch-hunting aspect of chasing the corrupt should not be ruled out. At the moment, the sense of disgust with corruption among the high and the low in government is so intense that the CBI is expected to play the good knight St George, which would slay the dragon of corruption by tracking down the corrupt.

And also do not rule out the misguided, tragic figures in uniform like Inspector Javert of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. The police officer chases convict Jean Valjean, who is a good and heroic soul. Javert fails to pin down Valjean’s crime, finds himself at the end of the tether and commits suicide. Javert does not break law, does not misuse law. But he understands law in the narrowest sense of the word. It can be argued that the CBI and other investigation agencies would need their fair share of inspector Javerts, but there is a need to remember that like a blinkered schoolmaster, a blinkered policeman will do more harm than good to society at large.

The police have to work under the civilian government because it is the only way that its operations can be open to public scrutiny, excesses can be checked and a police officer will not be hampered from doing an honest job. When there is talk of an independent CBI, there is need to keep the check-points in the frame as well.