THIRD C .T .VENUGOPAL MEMORIAL LECTURE ON  ‘VALUES’

 

 

By Shri P Shankar, Central Vigilance Commissioner

 

Mrs Vishwanathan and friends, I do realize that when I accepted this kind invitation of your FC to come and deliver this lecture, little did I realize that I ought to have considered it a little more carefully before accepting it.

 

This is indeed a real honor having heard about Mr Venugopal in whose memory this series has been instituted. One realizes with forced humility and modesty, how small we are compared to such giants. I will try to do as much justice I can, to the memory of Shri Venugopal. But if there are any shortcomings, well I would blame myself, I would not blame you for inviting me. I must also at the outset, apologize that I do not prepare my lectures. It is a failing partially induced perhaps by confidence in one’s ability to mouth words at the drop of the hat as also, in the fact that I never prepared for any thing, including my exams in life and they have yielded good results, if I may say so, and I continue to be in the same way for nine more months or so that I have left in the service.

 

Similarly, the topic chosen also was very careful "Values" as it is a kind of subject in life on which you can just about say anything and get away with it. The other two lectures on series were very professional and technical ones, on Infrastructure Financing. Mine is much simpler, though according to me in a sense, values are the one element of Infrastructure, which seem to have disappeared from public life. The ministers are not there, otherwise I would have mentioned it is not there in political life, it is not there in civil life, it is not there in just about any thing. So, it is time we talked about 'Values'.

 

 I found that you also had as part of the one-year celebrations, a seminar on 'Ethics in Public Administration’. These are all high sounding words, ethics, values, but ultimately all these things just tell you that somebody has framed your conduct rules and you try to act according to them. Ethics is nothing but a Code of Conduct and our people in the administration have drafted these conduct rules, keeping in view the situations which you will be facing in your day to day life.

 

I normally talk about 'The Seven Principles of Public Life', which a committee called 'Lord Nolan Committee', in England had outlined. It is a very famous report and it is interesting. Also that Vineet Narayan judgement of 1998 in the Jain Hawala case, they also quoted from these seven principles of public life. So my thought will be just talking about the seven principles of public life, as outlined by them. All of you will realize that just about any one of you could have stood here. Values in public life are just what you and I know, what we should be doing and some times for various reasons we don't. Nothing more nothing less than that.

 

Before I come on that, I can't help mentioning here that you had the C & AG talk earlier. When I asked him what did he say, he said," nothing what you would say". So he just talked about Finance and Accounts and I don't know what he said. He would send me a copy because I don’t want to be repetitive but at least from my point of view is that when people talk about vigilance, I don’t know, why we are called the Vigilance Commission, which means 'Be Alert' and that is the message not to us but to some one else, to our stakeholders to be alert. If they are alert, we can't be doing what we seem to be doing and necessitating a commission like mine. But we have been stressing all these years that so-called vigilance is really an internal function, and not an external function. If you start from yourself, you know what is right or wrong. It necessarily is not to touch on a moral plane. Even as we function we are all assigned responsibilities and we know what we should do and what we should not be doing. That is what no one tells us from outside. Each one of us, when we do some thing, we know whether we are doing the right thing or not. I am sure still all of us have a conscience, and at the end of a day, I am absolutely sure that every one of us knows during the day, what things we could have done differently, according to our own senses. What was wrong and what we didn’t do. I am sure, I have felt many times, that there are many ways that I could have improved my conduct during the day but it was always later, I wish I could have realized that earlier. So each one of us really, if you take on a personal plane, the vigilance is actually within us. We know what is right and what is wrong. Similarly, in an organization it is not necessary for either the C & AG or the CVC or for any body else to come from out side. We exactly know what is being done in a correct manner & proper manner and what is not being done. So, vigilance is really internal, it is not external at all.

 

 I am very happy to know that Mr Venugopal was also a senior DGM, and a part of our family. Really, according to me, IRAS is a real vigilance in the Railways, for every where we find it is the finance, which has always been looked upon to tell us what is proper and the correctness of things procedurally and of course, as a matter of prudence, in all these aspects.

 

          I have been, in fact, whenever I looked at files, I must confess, is that before September 2002, I had never looked at the vigilance manual, even though I was the CVO in the Ministry of Textiles. I had never, fortunately for me, got in contact with the vigilance people. But later on, I had more than my share of reading the vigilance manual, I must say. But wherever I functioned in my long career, I have been fortunate or otherwise in doing a lot of Industry related commercial activities and we always looked to the finance member of our team. In fact, now when I see the kind of advice I give on members of your tender evaluation committee and acceptance authority and so on, I dread that how I escaped. We just used to look at the finance member and say," Have you read it. Is it OK?" and just sign it. That was our confidence in the finance member.

 

          So really, you represent vigilance more than any body else. If you do your job well, I don’t think there can be any vigilance para, according to me. I am not saying that you all are not doing a job, because Railways are my most important customers, client or what do I say, I don’t know. But in-spite of that, things happen. Actually, it is the finance, which should be there. In a sense, I remember, Mr Guhan was one of the very admired civil servants, he was Finance Secretary in Madras for many years. I used to be very terribly irritated when finance used to ask me questions on my proposals. Naturally, I am an impatient man; I used to feel irritated on fundamental questions. So I asked him, so you mean to say I have not asked these questions that you have to come and tell me what to ask. Why do you arrogate your self the role of being conscience keeper of the government? Of course in his own way, he was 11 years senior, so that counts a lot, but he put me in my place in a way by saying that if conscience is being kept by all of you we won't be there. And of course, he related three or four of our past mischiefs. I was of course not, responsible for any of them. But he made me understand that whether you like it or not, finance will ask these questions and in your own interest let the finance ask these questions. It is like a drill, a checklist, so we ask you to make sure that you do that.

 

 

 

So whatever we say, it is very important that more than any body else, the members of the accounts service should perform their task. Why I am saying is as I was also, for one of my unlikely jobs as an F A in the External Affairs. I was there for just 10 months and I was tired of this when I was moved out to Dis-investment Commission. At that time, it was again my boss the Expenditure Secretary, who used to tell me, ‘Shankar you better watch out’. I said, ‘why’? He said, ‘If every body likes you that is not a good testimony to finance advisors. He should not be liked by people, because it means you are being good and trying to be popular'.

 

So, why I am saying this, it is the nature of your job that you have to express unpleasant truths, and this is very necessary that if your job warrants it, you have to mention it. This fearlessness that you talk about is independence, objectivity, which will be taken up by me as 'Principle's of Public Life'. It is this that is very important and at least some of the papers I have seen force me to mention this to you that in the performance of your jobs- Are you really being fearless? Are you giving too much consideration to others feelings? It is not necessary to be rude, not necessary to be unpleasant, but it is always possible to say what you have to say. So I thought since I am meeting a group of extremely eminent senior members of the railway accounts service, I would mention this before I move on to what I came here to say.

 

As I said that the Nolan Committee had outlined the Seven Principles of Public Life and we really should understand them and look at our own conduct. From the standpoint of these things there is absolutely no reason why the quality of Public Life can't be better. It is easy to talk about values from a very moral or spiritual perspective. It is not necessary but I feel that if each one of us is true to ourselves that is being more religious or being more moral.

 

The Seven Principles of Public Life, as outlined by the Nolan Committee. We can call them differently but this is what he has called them.

 

·        Selflessness

·        Integrity

·        Objectivity

·        Accountability

·        Openness

·        Honesty and

·        Leadership

 

These are the seven principles as out lined by them.

 

The first one of course is selflessness which was defined by the committee in these words; "Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, the family or their friends". I mean you cannot put it more bluntly. You do things in your official job. This is really what they meant. Most of our thing is misuse or abuse of one's official position. The Mahatma said, in his simple advice to public servants that before you sign a file, think of it, to whom it is going to benefit. Are the faces of poor people before you or some body else, who are going to gain? So for every action of yours you must be judged by that. That was on a very high moral plane, but for us on a day-to-day basis it is very important principle that at least we should make sure that our friends or our family or ourselves do not benefit. I mean our decisions should not be made by such considerations, so that we call this selflessness.

 

         The second we call the Integrity. Now, Integrity and Honesty, which comes next, I take them together. Integrity and honesty -what is the distinction? Even I never realized the distinction between integrity and honesty. As I read it, we clearly see, “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligations of outside individuals or organizations that might influence them in the performance of their official duty". Integrity is defined in this manner.

 

       Honesty is more to the point to the decision concerned, "Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interest relating to their public duty and to take steps to resolve any conflict arising in a way that protects the public interest". As you take a decision, immediately you know if you have an interest and that is honesty. Integrity is more far reaching because the damage is done much before you are called upon to take and independent decision. This is very true and relevant to our day-to-day life. If I have to approach people to be from where I am today, I have already signed an IOU, and today the fact is that as a body we civil servants have been leaving IOUs left right and center all through. When we do that we have to honor the IOU, otherwise it becomes unpleasant.

 

         So this is integrity, that you should not place yourself in a mundane plane. I keep asking somebody for a car or some facility, then I am obliged to him. Later on when I am dealing with his paper or some thing, much that I would like to convince myself that I am keeping them separate, it is not going to be so. As I said earlier, integrity starts much before you are called upon to take a decision. It is more fundamental principle of public life that you should not make yourself under any obligation. All of us will agree that on a daily basis this question we need to ask ourselves, because I know in my own career, I was Secretary Petroleum and Natural Gas, and I did not want as I was quite comfortable in my food portfolio, but a very big industrialist got to know that there was a possibility that I was being shifted. This is the way world operates. Now I got to know it because my minister had told me," I am going to lose you, I tried to argue but you are being shifted". I did not even ask him as to where am I going. I said but why am I being shifted, Sir. “ No, no but this decision has been taken and you are being shifted”. I did not know which ministry. He thought we ourselves create the distinction between the job of one Secretary is more important than the other Secretary is. Then automatically, of course, if they get two year's extension of service and that makes matters worse. So we automatically make these distinctions amongst ourselves. Then I look at if I must move into that place, as it is not good enough for me, not withstanding that same people, who want two year's extension in service, like to be there. This is a question we have to ask ourselves? We don’t. So coming to the point, I got a call from this gentleman. I was surprised as to why he was calling me. As a Food Secretary I had nothing to do with him. So he called and talked irrelevantly about the Ware Housing Program. Would you like to invest in Ware Housing? We have a saying in Tamil that I have power in my ears, which I am an idiot, if I knew that group was getting into food warehousing. Any way then he told me that you are coming to my Ministry, I mean he called it his ministry; you are coming to my ministry. I have asked the PM that I don’t want any body but you. Till then I did not know about myself that I was a great man. All these things he said and that I am asking for you by name. Then I immediately connected, it with what my minister had told me, but I kept quiet. I said, “I am comfortable, it is all nonsense or something like that, as I felt embarrassed, and kept the phone down”.

 

          The idea is if I was gullible and foolish to believe that he was responsible for my posting and internally felt grateful to him when the proposal came through. This is the way world operates. I compared notes with a few people and I was told that every time some body was posted to something important, he would get a similar call. It was the modus operandi. So people are dying to, before I go, get some credit to my present job also, claiming they came to you. This is a very good way of operating. We should not believe, even by mistake. Things will automatically happen, but should not believe that they contributed, or more importantly, you should not believe that they were responsible for it, as they are more than willing to give that kind of impression. That is integrity where you don’t face that situation under obligation. As I said, it starts much before than honesty, which is specific to the file you are dealing with. If there is a conflict of interest, you must declare your interest. It is much simpler one, but integrity is a more fundamental thing.

 

        Objectivity is, what ever your private dealings, you have to be objective in your decisions in carrying out public business, including public appointments, awarding contracts, recommending individuals for rewards and benefits. "Holders of public office should make choices on merits and not because you know them or you like them or all those things, strictly go according to them".

 

         And then is Accountability. The Right to Information Act says, “The holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit to the scrutiny to what ever is appropriate to their office”. Now since we do not recognize this of our own, we have the Right to Information Act, which they hope will make this accountability an essential principle of public life. It will be followed and it will be enforced since we don’t follow and people have to drag us to that for accountability.

 

       The next is Openness or Transparency – “The holders of Public Office should be as open as possible about all decisions and actions they take”. There should be reasons for their decisions, and restrict information only in the interest of wider public interest, as clear straight out of the Right to Information Act. Now this is also very important that it should be transparent. As a defensive mechanism, it is a great virtue, but in vigilance I must say that it is most important thing. Most of us get into needless bother into vigilance, because at the relevant time we do not record clearly the reasons as to why we are taking a particular decision. If you have taken a decision and recorded it then and there, it carries a greater credibility than six months later or one year later, when some body asks you why did you take that decision. Then you try to say,“I did it because of that”. Immediately the thing is it is an after thought and it is an excuse. Then we needlessly get into it and ultimately nothing may come out of it. In most of the vigilance cases, for that matter nothing comes out, but the punishment is really giving us an explanation. According to me that is the greatest punishment in vigilance than the punishment actually meted out. It is very close to having gone through the feelings; the explanation is sheer embarrassment of, as you really strip those under vigilance. It is a terrible feeling and all that can be avoided if you take the simple precaution of being clear about why we are doing that and taking time off to record it. Many people unnecessarily got into bother, because of that.

 

         Now to openness, I am giving the vigilance interpretation, what we have is different. Today, why we have the Right to Information Act is different- because in most government decisions no body knows why- every body knows what is on file and no body knows why? For instance, I asked why I was made the CVC. There is nothing on file or who made the panel -no body knows. I may feel that I am the perfect candidate and brought through the public service, but really if you look at the file, you will know whether somebody did consider my plus or minus and selected me for that. It is as simple as that.

 

       No government decision is really reasoned out and higher you go, in fact my advice to many RCI activists is that you are wasting your time. Most of the Right to Information Act queries that I am receiving is all personal enmity. That there was a complaint against that fellow, how he has been made a member, when I gave the complaint. What did you do let me see. He had taken photocopies of that. The other day, the Supreme Court judge said to me, your problem is simple. Every Right to Information ends up with a writ before me. What do I do? I have given him the information, but he had to follow up with a writ. In fact the judges are also not happy and the Supreme Court is not happy with the Right to Information Act. So, we have to really follow this at least now in our thing, purely to be fair to your self. More importantly every body has a right.

 

          One of our, I can't help relating to some of our working in the commission. In fact one of the main thing, which we are trying to now talk is that all tenders must be published on web sites for greater information to the public and wider participation. Two- all tenders above a particular thresh-hold value, the results must also be displayed on the web site. That is real openness. What we have been talking about and I claim credit, because we thought of it before the Right to Information act came into being. I have been talking about it for over a year. The third most important thing, which we want to enforce and introduce, is that I asked some body, "Can I pay ten rupees and ask for Right to Information?" I am going to do it, because once this way I must get the headlines. Really, there is tremendous amount of discretionary powers in the government. How it is exercised no body knows. This discretionary power has to be enforced and we have to do it, and every discretionary power used must be put on the web site. According to us it is one thing we do, which again the Right to Information warrants it and we are going to enforce it.

 

        And finally is the Leadership. Before you preach it, practice it yourself, so that when you talk about honesty, you should perceive me to be honest. You should believe what ever I have mouthed today, or literally said, you should believe that I am myself practicing it. So once you promote and support this principle by example is leadership.

 

          So these are the seven principles of public life. If you really go over them you will realize that each one of us, in different measures, have been following it. It is not that these are difficult, these are very fundamental and in many cases you will find, more or less, and in most cases we are following them.  Values in public administration according to me, is nothing but it is good to talk about, vigilance is in you, like God is in you. But ultimately they are translated into the very simple traceable things. Values in public administration are nothing more than following these in your actions. More importantly, practising and convincing the people with your colleagues to also share the same interest and follow it.

 

           I don’t want to take more of your time. I believe that there is a small interactive session if time is there, I will be more than willing to have it. I close by saying that I made it very simple. I hope you would agree with me that values are nothing more and nothing less.

 

          Thank you for inviting me.