Peer Reviewer 1:
The Reporters Notebook is accurate.
Corruption in India includes political corruption, bureaucratic corruption, corruption at the business level, and the criminalization of politics.
One must also mention the use of the "Hawala" network in the Kashmir insurgency. Indian politicians, bureaucrats, and businessmen have been implicated in money laundering operations that fund Kashmiri militants.
Peer Reviewer 2:
Although the Reporters Notebook has tried to get a snapshot of corruption, it does not seem to have really captured its nature and magnitude. It has also not grappled with problems of governance.
This may be because of the complexity of both. India is not a country which is governed from the center, with a monolithic governance structure. The prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singhs recent remark that regional compulsions of the UPA allies can distort national vision is indicative of this problem which arises mainly out of Indias political and regional diversity.
It is one thing to understand corruption in the context of the center and quite another to understand it in the context of the states. That said, it is the numerous states which make up India, though the center holds them together as a nation. Understanding corruption in the context of Mayawati and the Taj-corridor in UP at the state level and is qualitatively different from understanding corruption of Natwar Singh at the center, and how he was forced to be removed from the UPA ministry as minister for Foreign Affairs.
Though Indias policy makers, politicians and administrators may be aware of the multi-layered nature of corruption and the difficulties in tackling it, there is no policy framework and effective machinery for treating corruption as a national evil.
While the corruption of Mayawati, Natwar Singh, and politicians of their ilk may be in the category of corruption in high places, which is undoubtedly grave and rampant, in popular perception what constitutes corruption is what affects the ordinary people most and interferes with their normal lives. It is in this context that the nexus between corruption and governance has to be understood.
In popular perception, corruption in India is still pervasive, causes a lot of hardship to Indias unwashed millions and also drags many of them into its net. They blame it on bureaucrats, politicians, police, and the judiciary. They also blame it on the entry of MNCs in a big way. The salary offered by the MNCs even to the new entrants is very high. The salary of government employees or the income of those who eke out a living through other means is incomparably low. The former has a corrosive effect on the latter. The governance structure, whether at the center or in the states, has no vision or action plan to reduce wide income disparities and the related cost of living which add to the corruption and malfeasance of various sectors, such as education, health, public distribution system, public transport, housing, and other day-to-day necessities of life. So long as India does not have a comprehensive action plan for good and transparent governance and for ushering in a welfare state it cannot have any effective mechanism to deal with corruption.
A Mukesh Ambani being the richest person in the world may be news to the sensational media, whereas in popular perception it may be a major fault line in Indias democratic governance. Many would ask why such accumulation, what is its source, and why at least a part of it is not distributed among Indias poor. Many would ask the same about Indias other rich also. They would agree with Francis Bacon that money is like muck: not good unless spread.
Peer Reviewer 3:
The report reflects the ground realities and the state of affairs in the country. The reporter deserves applauds for presenting the picture through the statements/views of the highest authorities in the helm of affairs (in anti-corruption activities) in India. The limitations and helplessness in the fight against corruption are very well articulated in the report. The nexus between the pillars of Indian democracy is pithily highlighted. The reporters conclusion on the lack of political will to fight corruption is aptly backed by a mention about the pending Lok Pal Bill, which has seen maximum attempts, as many as eight, but is yet to be enacted!
However, the report mostly revolves around corruption on the political and bureaucratic levels and the judicial system as well. It is silent about corruption in the private sector, which is very much part of the same society. How can we ignore the existence of corruption in this section of the society, particularly when it influences the rest of the society to a greater extent?
Nevertheless, the following factors would have added more strength to the report under the present scenario: - The apex anti-corruption agency in India is the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The CVC does not have jurisdiction over the political executives. Even for investigating corruption cases against certain senior level civil servants, the sanction/permission have to be obtained from the head of the Departments, who is a political executive. Also the transfers/postings/promotions of senior civil servants are in the hands of political executives; - The CVC is basically an advisory body. However, the non-acceptance and non-implementation of its advice are noted in its Annual Report, which is placed before the Parliament for debate. But in reality, there is hardly any debate and the effect thereof can be imagined; - The CVC has jurisdiction over the civil servants of a particular level, who are working for the federal government (the government of India and its organizations). Its jurisdiction does not extend to the state governments (i.e. the provinces). The types of corruption which is talked about in the report and which directly affects the common man are not under the purview of CVC. Moreover, there is no visible and effective agency such as the CVC for the state governments (provinces). - Whatever may be the efforts of the anti-corruption agencies, ultimately the authority to impose penalty on the corrupt lies with the competent disciplinary authority (the executives, political or bureaucrats, i.e. the government) OR the judiciary. Of course, the report touches upon the nexus as well as the delay in this regard.
Peer Reviewer 4:
The first couple of paragraphs are too general and hence fail to draw attention to the issue and the immediate context.The third paragraph is in the form of a statement on the politician-corruption nexus in the specific context of electoral politics. Thereafter the report goes all over the place without delving into any specific illustration of this nexus at play.
The impression that is conveyed in the next few paragraphs is that the CBI is an autonomous agency, which, in reality, it isnt. This could be illustrated by drawing attention to the fact that the Taj Corridor case (involving Mayawati) and the Bofors scandal establish that the CBI is led to botch up cases by the political establishment. These two cases are instances where the CBI investigations were on track intermittently when the ruling establishment was constituted by parties that had some stakes in unraveling the case.
The report is also silent on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in the Jain Hawala case) that mere evidence of payoffs to public servants is not enough for prosecution and conviction under the Act, and that the nexus between the payoff and an act in return for the illegal gratification must be established; the doctrine of quid-pro-quo, as brought into the law by that judgment, is indeed a huge road-block insofar as leading the guilty to conviction.
I presume these changes can be made in the report.
Global Integrity uses a