Why VINOD RAI
The ex-CAG, who generated much controversy with his reports on telecom and coal scams, has just released his book Not Just an Accountant: The Diary of the Nation?s Conscience Keeper.
Ritu Sarin: In several segments in your book, you
appear to have withheld details but have spoken about them subsequently in interviews. For instance, the names of MPs who approached you during hearings of the public accounts committee (PAC) or the name of the civil aviation minister in the chapter on purchase of planes for Air India. Was this an approach to make the book controversial?
There was no such attempt. The idea of the book came about six months after I retired last year in May. I sincerely felt the CAG saga was behind me and wanted to move on. Whichever office I leave, I cut my umbilical cord to it. But for months after May, in media and public space, a lot of innuendos about the institution, linking it to me, kept coming. There was a great deal of concern among officials and my colleagues about why this should continue. Number two, till then I had never spoken anywhere in the media. There were people, including government dignitaries, who were talking about various things, and whenever I felt the need to clarify, I would write letters directly to them, instead of clarifying through the media. My colleagues felt that I need to make things clear and in a proper perspective. Our reports are
slightly technical and have limited circulation. They only go to Parliament, the assemblies and officials. I decided that four-five
issues which have caught public imagination need to be put out in simpler language. I don?t think there was any attempt at intrigue, sensationalism or creating controversies. I put in the names that occurred to my mind, and didn?t put in those that didn?t occur to me, or who I thought were not necessary, and that was also the case with the minister.
Coomi Kapoor: Towards the end of the UPA regime, when your reports were coming out, do you think you were under surveillance?
Not really. It?s a very funny thing. I have spent five-seven years in the finance ministry. If you recall, few days before the Budget is announced, junior officials get quarantined. Senior officers and joint secretary are out, but they are cautioned that their phones may be under surveillance. So these kind of things go around and we would joke with each other. I have
mentioned this in my book, that I told these guys, ?You probably have two of my numbers. If you want, you can keep the third also?.
Rishi Raj: There was criticism that you didn?t confine yourself to the auditor?s role and that your reports went into policy-making and commenting on whether the policy was right or wrong.
People have asked this time and again, and I have written to many higher dignitaries also, asking them to indicate where we have got into policy domain. Just to give you an example, in 2008, the policy was first come-first serve. We audited whether the licences were distributed vis-a-vis that policy. In 2010, the government switched to an auction process. If you remember, the 3G auctions were completed on May 31, 2010. Our report was not even half done. Our report was put out on November 16, six months later. Where have we gone into the policy domain? All that we did was to quantify the revenue foregone. It is a guideline we have. Number two is to indicate sub-optimality of policies. In this, what we did was that in 2008?s first come-first serve policy, you got X amount. Then you had auction in 2010, you got Y. Y ? X is equal to what amount. That?s all. We have not said that the auction or the first come-first serve policy was right.
Coomi Kapoor: There is a feeling that your quantification of loss to the government was sensationalised and figures like R1.76 lakh crore or R1.86 lakh crore are unrealistic.
Let me take up each figure. The R1.76 lakh crore figure on the 2G spectrum issue. We gave four models and obviously the media will pick up the larger model. Second was the coal figure at R1.86 lakh crore. I have written in the book that if you call that figure sensational, just compare the figure with the government?s own evaluation of coal. For those of you who have not read it, this figure of R1.84 lakh crore was for 6,282 million tonnes of coal for the 57 mines which had been given out in 2005. Now the government itself, on the direction of the supreme court, had set up the central empowered committee. You will recall that forest lands were being given for mining and various activities, and this was being done on the advice of the forest advisory committee (FAC). The supreme court had set up the central empowered committee to review the decisions of the FAC and advise the SC. This was in 2006. One such case was in Orissa, where at stake were 400 million tonnes in two mines, which had to be
allocated to Sainik Mining. The government?s evaluation for it was R80,000 crore. We were not talking about 400-800 million tonnes, but about 6,282 million tonnes. Now tell me in which way can you call it sensationalism.
Sunil Jain: Another report of the CAG when you headed it discussed bilaterals, and suggested that these should be reserved for Air India, that it needs a special dispensation. Why should a PSU be given such treatment?
Why have you brought bilaterals in? It is a government-to-government agreement, it doesn?t involve Air India. Bilaterals are always concluded on a mutual basis. My airline gets 10 seats, your airline gets 10 seats. Now look at the process. On the one hand, you are making the airline buy a large number of aircraft, you have a 90% share in the market but you are saying that in the next five years, you will have a 30% share. You are not showing a road map. And that?s why the finance ministry said that this proposal is a supply-driven proposal.
Number two, you had set up world-class airports under PPP, and at least Delhi and Mumbai were ready by then. What was the idea? To create them as hubs? That was your policy?
Now in bilaterals, what were you doing? You were allowing airline X to come to Hyderabad, Lucknow, Chandigarh and Gorakhpur and carry passengers from Chandigarh straight to Dubai. Where were you leaving scope for 50 more long-haul aircraft to carry passengers? If you had said for the convenience of the travelling public, I would allow more seats from Bombay and Delhi and I would permit my own internal carriers, from Gorakhpur and Chandigarh to Mumbai, because these were hubs you were creating, then possibly your bilaterals would have been well justified. Now what are you doing? You are stifling, you have your urban skies policy, you are buying more aircraft,
Rs 38,000 crore of debt.
Ritu Sarin: Should there have been an intervention between the time the planes were brought in and subsequently sold almost as a distress sale? How complicit in your view was the minister because he has denied everything and threatened to take you to court?
The planes were not sold during his term. I think they were sold afterwards. I have not talked about the complicity of any minister or bureaucrat. All I have said is that Air India is a public sector enterprise. Hopefully, it should be allowed to be run professionally or commercially by itself. The ministry of civil aviation was the administrative ministry for Air India. Commercial or technical, I think they should have been far more savvy in taking their decisions rather than the government taking all the decisions. That is all that I have said. I have not said that any minister was complicit.
Rakesh Sinha: For the appointment of the CAG, should there be a collegium as LK Advani suggested once and the DMK backed? Or should there be eligibility criteria?
This was a question asked of us by the prime minister himself. During the Commonwealth Games, a high-level committee was set up. It recommended that selection and the CAG?s monocracy should become plural. The PM asked our opinion and we gave it. I have given in writing saying that the process of selection should include elements of comfort, confidence, trust or whatever you say, and it should be transparent, which means a collegium process. Similar to the CVC or the election commission. We have said that clearly. I don?t think the eligibility criteria have been laid down. If the government lays them out, the better. We have said there are examples of multi-member and single-member bodies in the world. I sincerely believe that ever since the EC has become plural, its powers have not been lost or diluted.
Ritu Sarin: Would you elaborate on the remark repeated in the book, that had Dr Manmohan Singh been more vigilant and transparent, the history of the UPA and the state of the Indian economy would have been different?
I?ll tell you exactly what I said… What I have said is that on January 3, when he gave a template reply to Mr A Raja?s letter of December 26, which laid it all out… he just said, ?Received your letter and informing you of the developments in the telecom sector…?. All I have said is that if at that time, he had said, ?Please don?t take a decision in a hurry, bring it before the GoM??which all other departments, law, finance, company affairs, commerce and industry, and the PMO were advising ? the fate of the UPA or that of the Indian economy would have been different.
Ritu Sarin: You worked hard at trying to enlarge the scope of auditing. You said over 50% of government expenses are not audited, and you included PPP etc. How much did you achieve by the time you left office?
The audit Act is of 1971. In 1971, there was no such thing as a PPP. When there is a PPP, the audit Act doesn?t automatically cover it. So, in 2009, I first made a presentation to the planning commission. I said two-thirds of central planned funds are being devolved through a model which does not come under the automatic radar of the CAG. That came as a surprise to them and they said it needs to be corrected. Then we made a presentation to the finance minister, who also accepted it. However, the amendment to the Act has not come about yet.
How have we made the change? In every release order that the planning commission and ministries issue on central planned funds, they add a line at the bottom that this release is auditable by the CAG. So, it has not become automatically legal, but in executive orders, it is.
Ritu Sarin: What?s your view of the functioning of the PAC, because eventually all reports are looked at by them? In your Air India report, you?ve mentioned that nothing was heard of it.
The 22-member PAC has maybe 25-30 sittings in a year if there are a large number of reports. How many reports do we present to the PAC? 150. Now the issue is, how do you examine each report in detail. So they had asked us for an opinion. We gave a suggestion which was practised on and off. In order to ensure deeper examination of many reports, they set up four sub-committees. But the problem with the PAC is that it?s just not feasible for them to examine all these reports. In some states/countries, the PAC meets every Monday of the month. So everybody knows about the meeting and how many there will be. That?s the kind of system that we need to introduce.
Aleesha Matharu: How do you think your successor is faring? How come his office isn?t as leaky as yours was?
How he is faring is not my business. He is an equal. I think it is as leaky, I don?t want to tell you why, but leakiness is not leakiness. It is officially giving out those reports. The CAG is covered by the RTI Act. And if you file a R10 RTI and say draft a report of a coal mine and give it to me, I have no option but to do it.
Ritu Sarin: Even when the report has not been tabled in Parliament?
Exactly. Please read the letter I have written to the Prime Minister. When a draft report goes to a minister, it is not seen by the CAG or even the deputy CAG. It is a report prepared by the director general and is shared with the ministry just to get facts correct. And there?ll be about 100 observations, after which, once the ministry gives its reply, 50 of them will be dropped. So what we protested against was that this was leading to a great deal of sensationalism because I?ve got cases where a guy leaves anonymous queries and then asks why hasn?t it been brought in the draft itself, because under RTI, we have to give it out even though it?s dropped.
So it?s not leakiness, though I have written that it could have leaked from the CAG?s office. I?ve said that I?m not in a position to give an assertion because I do not have an assurance that it may not have leaked from my office. It may have leaked from the ministry as well.
Ritu Sarin: The coal scam draft report was one report that leaked out. If you?re saying it came through RTI, were you, as the CAG, consulted on if the draft should be given?
There?s no question of being consulted. I appealed before the chief information commissioner, but was turned down, so I instructed that they jolly well give out whatever RTI queries come to us.
Ritu Sarin: So you have ruled in favour of giving the draft report via RTI?
There is no option. It is the ruling given by the CIC. In fact, I should have written in the book, I went and appealed against the CIC order in the high court, and the court hasn?t ruled as yet. If you read that letter that I sent to the prime minister, which was then referred to the finance minister, I went to the speaker to discuss all these things, it?s clearly written there. You can call it sensationalism, but this is a process that needs reform. My only suggestion to the PM was that till such time Parliament has seen the report, it should constitute breach of privilege of Parliament if we are giving it under RTI or leak. On the other hand, I said that while that should not be under RTI, the establishment of the CAG should be maintained under the RTI.
Ritu Sarin: This matter has gone to the high court and will probably go to the apex court as well. Will the CAG appeal in the higher courts ?
If I were the CAG, I would appeal. I would because I feel it is doing a lot of damage to the credibility of both the government and CAG.
Transcribed by Pallavi Chattopadhyay & Suyash Gabriel
