& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Whither anti-corruption drive?

The government's decision to withdraw cases that it sees as politically motivated should be reconsidered. While it is true that it was common practice of past governments to indulge in false litigation to harass political opponents, to bypass the judicial process would mean demeaning the judiciary and the rule of law.

ShahedulAnam Khan
IT would appear that the drive against corruption has gone awry. To many it would seem that what started with a bang by the erstwhile caretaker government is peteringout rather mildly.
But corruption remains die core issue for us. What is one to make of die World Bank's refusal to fund any further project in die road sector because of corruption? It is a slight on the nation but we can't take the WB to court to have it prove the allegation. And one couldn't agree more witli the finance minister that the WB itself is a party to it.
Public perception of national issues like corruption is shaped by the instances of reported graft and illegal benefits of ex-ministers and high officials to let off an alleged murderer, or to bestow undue favours to a foreign company operating in the country, or of one reportedly owning more than hundred flats in Dhaka. Many of these are yet to be proven in the court of law, but what law can prevent me from formingan opinion of my own?
The so-called jihad against corruption in the two year's of the CTG may have not turned out the way people expected, but it did expose several things.
First, had it not been for the drive we would never have known that a government servant could stash away millions at home without anyone up or down the chain ever coming to know of it. But for it we would have been unaware of government lands being allegedly given away to a minister’s son at a most ludicrous price, or of public universities employing man-
power much beyond that authorised, causing loss of millions to the state, or of privately owned horses fed on energy biscuits meant for the poor.
We had said in these very columns in early 2007 that the public in general wanted to see measures that would permanently break the unholy nexus that existed between some politicians and some unscrupulous businessmen and dishonest bureaucrats. But the people in general were also sensitive about arbitrary curbing of the rights of individuals. In this regard there was need to follow the legal process and the rule of law.
What went wrong, to my mind, was the motive behind the drive and the way it was pursued.
It is now clear that the ant-corruption drive was an instrument to go after the politicians to "cleanse politics." While not all politicians were epitome of honesty and integrity, the manner in which the drive was conducted exposed the ill motives. Any action that is not accompanied by honest intentions is destined to fail.
While most of those hauled up for alleged corruption were politicians, they were arrested without any charges against them. The manner of their incarceration, some with their families, and subsequent questioning, did not conform to the legal norms. And while many had to wait for a long time before being charged, some, enjoying the patronage of those calling the shots, went scot-free even when substantive charges of corruption to the tune of millions were brought against them by the ACC. At least one, known to have exploited the system to the hilt during the 4-party rule for personal gains, was not even asked to furnish his wealth statement, or find men tion in the so called suspect list prepared by the NCC (whose locus standi the advisor heading it had himself questioned), because of his links to the top brasses.
As of today, reportedly, more than 200 high profile accused have obtained stay order on the cases against them filed by the ACC. And most of the stay orders have been on technical grounds and not the merit of the case.
The PM herself has expressed her displeasure at known bigwigs who. according to her, had amassed crores illegally, and she is convinced that the allegation of corruption against them are substantial and have merit, are being able to slip through the net because of technicalities.
We resent seeing ourselves at the top of the list of most corrupt countries but are quite unaware of the serious effect it has on
human security. This government, we are sure, would also like to root out corruption. And one way to ensure that is by having the cases of corruption proved in the court and the guilty punished.
While the innocent should not suffer, the^ people would not like to see the corrupt and tire bad ones become heroes because of some legal loopholes or weak handling of the cases. And this would require the ACC to be able to work without invisible fetters.
In this regard, the government's decision to withdraw cases that it sees as politically motivated should be reconsidered. While it is true that it was common practice of past governments to indulge in false litigation to harass political opponents, to bypass the judicial process would mean demeaning the judiciary and the rule of law. The PM can increase her government's credibility by letting the legal process run its course.
The author k Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daiy Star