The axis of symmetry
On the issue of disclosing names of those holding illegal money in Swiss bank accounts, Mr Jaitley has taken a position that is identical to the ones that had been espoused by his predecessors
The room is rather spacious, much bigger than the size of an entire flat occupied by a typical upper middle-class Indian family. Is there something about the biggest room located at the western end of the northern of the two blocks of symmetrical buildings on opposite sides of the great axis of Rajpath that makes its occupants speak more or less the same language irrespective of their political affiliation?
After finance minister Arun Jaitley presented his maiden Union Budget on July 10, few had any doubt that he had followed in the footsteps of his predecessor Palaniappan Chidambaram pursuing policies favouring foreign investors and in displaying eagerness to pare the fiscal deficit. Not only were the Bharatiya Janata Party’s political opponents quick to point out that there was little to distinguish between the two lawyer politician sturned-finance ministers in terms of their economic ideology and policies, commentator Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar even quipped that Mr Jaitley’s Budget was just like Mr Chidambaram’s but with “saffron lipstick”.
On the issue of disclosing names of those allegedly holding illegal money in Swiss bank accounts, the incumbent finance minister has taken a position that is identical to the ones that had been espoused by both Mr Chidambaram as well as his predecessor who occupied the largest room in North Block, Pranab Mukherjee (who has now, of course, moved to even more spacious accommodation across Raisina Hill in Rashtrapati Bhavan).
Similar sets of so-called concerns have been expressed by the last three finance ministers on the issue of identifying holders of illegal funds outside the country. If the ministry of finance lets the public know the names of those who are holding bank accounts outside the country without specifying in a court of law charges of concealment of income leading to tax evasion and/or other allegations of a criminal nature such as money laundering, the government would be violating guarantees of secrecy and confidentiality contained in various double-taxation avoidance agreements (DTAAs) signed between India and other countries.
Further, it has been argued that disclosure of the names of Indians with foreign bank accounts with funds that are allegedly illegal would compromise the government’s position vis-a-vis information exchange agreements with different countries. This, in turn, would constrain future efforts to track illicit flows of funds across the globe, it has been claimed. It’s another matter that DTAAs are all about not taxing twice “legal” incomes that have accrued to individuals and corporate entities operating out of different national jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court is apparently not entirely convinced by these lines of reasoning. Only time will tell what the apex court-appointed special investigation team will unearth. But what is amply clear at this stage itself is that even if the holders of illegally obtained funds outside India are identified, bring- ing the black money back to India is not going to be easy. The possibility of each Indian getting `15 lakh once the slush cash comes back to the country — a promise that had been made in the election speeches of the stalwarts of the BJP, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi — is clearly out of the question. The government should consider itself lucky if it manages to get one rupee for each of the country’s 1.25 billion citizens, or 125 crore, from those holding funds illegally outside India.
Having spoken the language of his predecessors while presenting the Budget and on the topic of bringing black money back to the country, Mr Jaitley raised quite a few eyebrows by his remarks on the role and responsibilities of a constitutional authority which is supposed to act as a guardian of the people’s finances, namely, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. Here are a few excerpts from what he said on October 30:
“He (meaning the CAG) doesn’t have to sensationalise... He doesn’t have to get into headlines. He has to scrutinise thoroughly the decision-making process. He has to necessary eliminate the possibility of any form of nepotism that may have been exercised... He must be conscious of the fact that he is reviewing a decision, which has already been taken... Environment of finger pointing cannot be allowed to replace fair and reasonable decision-making. I think it’s a subtle distinction in your capacity building which has to emerge at this stage...”
“If he finds a corrupt view, then the level of discretion he exercises in commenting has to be (an) entirely different standard. If he finds two views are possible and his own view is probably different, he then can have a more liberal approach... Let us also not forget when we live in a society, which by temperament, having learnt the hard way the last few years, have become an over-suspicious society and therefore our job is not to convert the public opinion into a kind of a lynch mob...”
The day after he made this speech, Mr Jaitley stated on Facebook: “News reports of my speech at the CAG conference do not accurately reflect the spirit of my speech.” The finance minister does indeed protest too much. A media-savvy minister like him should surely have known that when he pontificates in public, journalists will invariably pick, choose and highlight only those portions of his utterances that they considered particularly “newsworthy” — which is exactly what happened.
To place things in perspective, here’s what another finance minister who became Prime Minister had to say about the office of the CAG on November 16, 2010: “(There is) a huge responsibility on the institution to ensure that its reports are accurate, balanced and fair. Very often, there is a very thin line between fair criticism and fault finding, between hazarding a guess and making a reasonable estimate, between a bonafide genuine error and a deliberate mistake. As an important watchdog in our democracy, it falls upon this institution to sift the wheat from the chaff, to distinguish between wrongdoing and genuine errors, to appreciate the context and circumstances of decision-making processes.”
On the same day, a little before Manmohan Singh made this speech, the CAG presented its report on the second-generation (2G) telecommunications spectrum scandal in Parliament. A day earlier, Andimuthu Raja had been arm-twisted into resigning from his ministerial post. The rest, as the old saying goes, is history. There is, indeed, something about that large room in North Block that makes its occupants speak from the same script. The writer is an educator
and commentator