We Indians love scams so much that the word ‘scam’ is now part of all Indian languages, though the meaning is not the same as given in the Oxford dictionary; in India ‘scam’ is understood as not any run-of-the-mill dishonest scheme, but a big-ticket swindle, involving top people. Scams typically manifest themselves before major elections, to the extent that if no juicy scam is on the horizon, politicians make one up.

Even otherwise, the frequency of scams has increased over the years. Tellingly, a scam for one political party can be a pathbreaking initiative for the other. A look at the Congress party manifesto reveals that it has promised investigation into various ‘scams’ like Electoral Bonds, Pegasus, PM Cares etc. Not surprisingly, according to the BJP they were not scams but well-thought out, forward-looking initiatives. The Bofors scam of 1987 vintage exemplifies the lifecycle of a scam.

Massive publicity given to the scam led to the downfall of the Rajiv Gandhi government, which had come to power with an unprecedented majority. Having won on the Bofors plank, VP Singh, the next Prime Minister, promised that the Bofors culprits would be behind bars within fifteen days. However, the first chargesheet in the Bofors case was filed in October 1999, only to be quashed by the Delhi High Court in 2004. Today, the main dramatis personae are dead. No part of the alleged illegal commission of Rs.64 crore has been recovered, and no one has gone to jail for perpetrating the ‘scam’. The Bofors scam had a very interesting sequel. Once the scandal broke out, Bofors was blacklisted and no further purchases were made from the company.

At the time of the Kargil war, we had the Bofors gun but no ammunition to feed it. In desperation, we purchased ammunition at the rate of $10,000 per round from South Africa. The entire cost was never officially revealed, but given the fact that the Bofors gun fires three rounds per minute, the cost must have been astronomical. It is a matter of record that the Bofors gun proved itself in battle and turned the tide of the Kargil war decisively in our favour. However, after blacklisting Bofors, we could not get the benefit of the second part of the contract with Bofors, which would have allowed us to manufacture the Bofors gun indigenously.

More damagingly, the infamy associated with the Bofors deal made the Government devise a convoluted defence acquisition procedure, which ensures that defence purchases drag on endlessly. In the final analysis, the Bofors gun was the best in its class; bribes were paid because politicians never do anything without ‘Vitamin M’ and arms dealers always pay money, to whoever buys their outrageously priced goods. The Tehelka sting (2001), which showed that everyone from clerks to ministers were willing to sell the security of the country for ridiculously small sums, proved that no steps had been taken to prevent recurrence of a scam of the Bofors type.

The only distinguishing feature from Bofors was that some Tehelka journalists and investors were jailed, after they reported on the scam. The 2G ‘scam’ (2009), had its genesis in a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report that estimated a ‘presumptive loss’ of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to Government on account of the low price at which the Government allocated the 2G spectrum. Along with the Coalgate and Commonwealth Games (CWG) scams, it was fashioned into one of the major issues for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections by the Opposition, which led to the UPA Government losing the elections.

Looking at the 2G scam with the benefit of hindsight, we find that the decision to allot airwaves on ‘first come first served’ basis ensured that mobile telephony rates in India are the cheapest in the world. Today, even the poorest Indian has a mobile phone enabling his participation in the digital revolution. A few days ago, D Subbarao, who was the Finance Secretary and RBI Governor during the UPA time, validated the above view, stating in a newspaper interview that the premise on which the CAG had estimated the ‘presumptive loss’ of Rs 1.76 lakh crore was flawed.

Rather, there could have been a ‘presumptive gain’ to the Government, in terms of the recurring revenue on increased spectrum usage, and almost universal mobile coverage. Significantly, Subbarao had opposed allocating 2G spectrum at 2001 prices, but had come around later on. The CAG under whose watch the CWG, Coalgate and 2G ‘scams’ had been ‘unearthed’ is active even today as the Chairman of United Nations Panel of External Auditors; he was appointed as Chairman, Committee of Administrators of BCCI by the Supreme Court in 2017, at a remuneration of Rs 3.62 crore, for three years. An analysis of the Coalgate scam leads to a similar conclusion viz.

not auctioning coal mines was a sound policy decision. Otherwise, coal would have been much more expensive, pushing up prices of electricity and other manufactured goods. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, CWG, 2G and Coalgate were instances of common corruption and not ‘scams’ in the true sense. What was indeed common to all scams was that after the initial hullaballoo, no significant person was punished, cases have dragged on till today in various courts, and most significantly, no part of the defalcated cash has been recovered. A question arises as to why all major scams, which clearly caused huge loss to the Government, could not reach their logical conclusion?

Firstly, once a scam breaks out, all investigating agencies run helter-skelter after the scamsters, which derails the investigation, because all agencies pursue different goals and zealously guard, and never share, any information they possess. Thus, the CBI would try to prove that the scamsters did not follow proper procedures, the Income-tax Department would try to prove that the scamsters did not pay Income-tax properly, while the Enforcement Directorate would play on the moneylaundering angle.

Consequently, when presented in court, the case becomes a jigsaw puzzle – too complicated to be resolved in a finite time-frame. Secondly, investigating agencies prosecute scam cases seectively. Once the government changes; investigating agencies change their tune. Thirdly, and most importantly, the Government under whose watch the scam took place puts all its might in defending the scamsters. No wonder, most scamsters go unpunished, and once the spotlight leaves them, enjoy proceeds of their crime. Ideally, a standard operating procedure should be devised to deal with scams with a view to (a) punish the guilty, (b) recover the money earned illegally, and (c) prevent the recurrence of similar scams. Once a crime is classified as a scam, an interdepartmental Special Investigation Team (SIT) having people from all enforcement agencies and the banking sector should be constituted.

The SIT alone should have jurisdiction to investigate the scam, with a mandate to complete its investigations within a definite time-frame, and file a charge-sheet simultaneously. The SIT should also be obliged to suggest ways to recover the money lost in the scam. Of course, all instances of corruption in high places lower public confidence irretrievably. People begin to think that if their rulers are engaged in massive corruption they would be justified in being corrupt in their small ways. Thus, the moral fabric of the country suffers. Moreover, after being perceived as corrupt, the moral authority of all leaders, not necessarily the ones involved, diminishes, and fringe elements peddling communalism and casteism assume leadership roles.

Finally, we may contrast what happens to investigations in India with the suo-motu police investigation into Partygate ~ a number of parties that were held by the British Prime Minister at the official residence of the PM, during the Covid lockdown. No politician, including the PM, had the courage to question the police enquiry. Obviously, London Police has set the bar very high. A former Chief Commissioner of London Police, Sir Robert Mark, had laid down his vision for the police in the following words: “… it is important for you to understand that the police are not the servants of the Government at any level.

We do not act at the behest of a minister or any political party, not even the party in government. We act on behalf of the people as a whole and the powers we exercise cannot be restricted or widened by anyone, save Parliament alone.” Scams, in India can be avoided only if our investigating agencies achieve this high level of independence, integrity and professionalism.

DEVENDRA SAKSENA The writer is a retired Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax