Many years ago I read a flattering biography of AK Fazlul Huq, the flamboyant politician of united Bengal who was subsequently Chief Minister of East Pakistan. The biographer was amused by the frequent accusations of corruption and nepotism levelled against Huq by the Congress. He particularly gloated over an exchange Huq -- then Chief Minister of united Bengal -- had with the Congress in the Legislative Council in the 1940s. When a Congress legislator brought a serious charge of nepotism against him, Huq was unfazed. Speaking from the Treasury Benches, he retorted: "If I don't help my relative, who will I help?"

I don't know if Shipping Minister TR Baalu is blessed with the same earthy wisdom as the colourful Huq. However, there is no mistaking the similarity of his justification for trying to accord preferential allotment of gas to his family-owned business. Regardless of the convoluted sophistry of the Prime Minister's Office which is embarrassed by being dragged into something it initially regarded as a run-of-the-mill DMK-AIADMK spat, the sub-text of the Government's defence of Baalu is: "What is wrong with Baalu giving his family firm some special help?"

In Western democracies, Baalu would have been compelled to resign from the Cabinet. In Britain, where they are sticklers for propriety, people have had to resign for lesser offences. Even the remotest suggestion of any misuse of a person's official position for private gain, or even gain to a friend or associate, prompts drastic action. Of course, in countries such as Italy they tend to be more lenient -- witness the allegations that dogged Sylvio Berlusconi in his previous tenure as Prime Minister. And as for eastern democracies such as Japan and Taiwan, nepotism is the norm.

The Leader of Opposition LK Advani has seized on Baalu's discomfiture to charge the UPA Government with widespread corruption. If the bush telegraph of the Capital is anything to go by, he is merely echoing a perception that ministers from the smaller parties are having a ball. However, in the minds of many Indians there is a distinction between corruption and nepotism.

By conventional norms of political morality, Indians are disinclined to be indulgent towards any act which either involves a quid pro quo or creaming off government funds. Thus, payments for favours, kickbacks and undeclared commissions are frowned upon. However, when it comes to nepotism, Indian ethical standards seem more lax. No one bats an eyelid when ministers put in a discreet word to the relevant department for facilitating the work (legitimate or otherwise) for a friend, relative or even a political worker. Indeed, politicians who don't oblige are called selfish and have a torrid time getting re-elected.

In the erstwhile NDA Government, Ram Naik got into controversy for helping facilitate petrol pump allotments to many political workers. There was no suggestion that he personally benefited from this disbursement of largesse. Compared to the Congress which built its party machinery on the strength of political patronage of the public sector, Naik's sins were trivial. Yet, in the eyes of the urban electorate he was damned. The so-called petrol pump scandal probably contributed to his defeat in Mumbai in 2004.

Actually, the tone was set by Jawaharlal Nehru. India's first Prime Minister may have been an honest man but he treated the Government of India as his personal zamindari. A book by Dileep Padgaonkar released last week underlines how the whims and fancies of Nehru led to the impoverished Indian State subsidising the artistic and non-artistic peccadilloes of Roberto Rossellini, a great film-maker, going through a bad patch. Nehru saw nothing improper in following up on his sister's recommendation that Rossellini could, perhaps, make a film on India. Rossellini never did give the rushes of his incomplete film to the Films Division but he helped enhance Nehru's image as an enlightened man. Today, Nehru would have been indicted by the Comptroller and Auditor General for his inability to distinguish personal generosity from state patronage.

The DMK Minister was, perhaps, following the Nehruvian precedent.

Baalu's conduct is inexcusable to a minority of Indians who feel that the Indian State is bloated and that at the root of corruption are the discretionary powers enjoyed by Ministers. Unfortunately, this view of a minimal State is still not a majority view. The political class, for example, would be absolutely horrified by the transparent norms introduced by Narendra Modi for the transfers and postings of schoolteachers in Gujarat. In most States, this is a source of pocket money for Ministers and lesser bureaucrats. In fact, one of the reasons Modi is unpopular among professional politicians is because he undercuts corruption.

However, there are also welcome signs that the electorate is beginning to be less tolerant of nepotism. Modi, for example, is admired because he keeps out all relatives. Likewise, Orissa Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik's greatest strength is that he has no need to oblige family members. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, unlike his predecessor, has a similar reputation. Manmohan Singh's integrity is fierce and unquestioned. He shouldn't sully his image by seeing to pamper rogues of any description. His ignorance of the unfreezing of Italian fugitive Ottavio Quattrocchi's bank accounts in London was bad enough; he shouldn't add to his sins of omission.

It is reported that a relevant Parliament committee is considering measures to curb cronyism and nepotism by introducing the principle of the conflict of interests. If the political class agrees that electing a legislator does not also involve subsidising his son's business and adding to the son-in-law's bank balance, or patronising his favourite filmstar, it will be an important step in cleaning up India.

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, May 04, 2008