Disband the PMO

Disband the PMO
Kuldip Nayar

The Prime Minister's Office is behaving like a coy girl who is affronted over a whistle. It is not even a catcall. Over the years, the PMO has become the centre of power. It is a mini-government, with a separate official even for foreign affairs. It has no constitutional sanction. Still, it continues to thrive. The PMO first acquired muscle in the mid-60s, when Lal Bahadur Shastri was prime minister. Ever since, it has been growing from strength to strength under a succession of prime ministers. This was particularly so when Indira Gandhi ruled the country. For her, the PMO came in handy during the Emergency. By then it had gained control over all the levers of power.

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was a victim of the Emergency, should have dismantled this giant machinery. But he didn't choose to do so because it enabled him to control the running of the entire government. In the name of assisting the PM in coordinating the functions of different ministries, .

For the first time in its history, the PMO has lost its cool following the `aspersions' cast on it by the Tehelka expose. Two officials from the PMO held a press conference nearly a week after the controversy surfaced to issue a denial. They could have done this on the very first day. Journalists have been chided for not observing ethical values. It is not understandable how. They reported what they saw on television screens. Should they have skipped the names of officials who were mentioned in the conversations regarding the defence deals that were recorded?

And the allegations do not become `baseless' just because they are dubbed so. Some independent agency has to look into them. No government has ever admitted its mistakes or lapses. Vajpayee did well by ordering a probe into the transactions which Tehelka revealed. Will the probe cover the PMO?

``We do not get involved in inter-corporate wars,'' says the PMO. This is a serious statement, which the topmost agency of the government has made. Journalists are not even aware of `wars'. They would like to know who is shooting whom and why the government is a silent spectator? In fact, the charge against the PMO is that business lobbies exert influence on it. How is it distant from the corporate world and from the `wars'? No less a person than E.A.S. Sarma, a bureaucrat of impeccable integrity, has said in a press interview that some powerful business houses are forcing economic decisions on the ministries through the PMO. The authority, as he says, is with the Cabinet. ``The troubles begin when the PMO fails to respect the role of the Cabinet and the cabinet secretary.''

These words are not that of journalists but that of a former colleague of the officials serving the PMO. Why has not Sarma been sued for slander? The statement that all decisions are taken by the cabinet is neither here nor there. Of course, cabinet approval is necessary. But the charge against the PMO is that it manoeuvres the decision. It is no longer a secret that a group of ministers is constituted by the PMO to bypass a particular ministry whenever required. Some specific cases have been cited. One secretary has even complained in writing that his ministry had been bypassed. One vainly looked for some explanation at the press conference.. It is demanding the resignation of some officials as if everything will be all right after that. The PMO has to be disbanded. It is apt to be misused once such a body exists. It is inherent in the act of concentrating power.

India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had only one secretary. Those were the formative years. He could have issued instructions from his office. He was also a hero of the freedom struggle. His word counted. But he saw to it that the ministries would function and take decisions on their own. Had the Tehelka disclosures made the government think about the evils, which have crept into the system, they would have served their purpose. But the reaction has been different. There is an effort to belittle the commendable job the website has done. The question of authenticity has been brought in. Even motives are questioned.

Indeed, it is a tremendous scoop, which does not lose its importance just because the Opposition, particularly the Congress, has politicised it. Only the probe will tell us whether the picture of the BJP chief taking a sheaf of currency notes is real or not. Similarly, we would come to know who was telling the truth. These things are reprehensible enough. But the worse is the manner in which Tarun Tejpal of Tehelka is being harassed. From his account, it appears that the Emergency days are back. He told me that the income-tax department and the Company Law people were after him.

This was precisely what Sanjay Gandhi did to settle scores with opponents. Vajpayee and Home Minister L.K. Advani were the sufferers then. How can they now forget all that and allow any government department to torment a person who has done yeoman service in exposing the system of bribe and graft? Tejpal also told me that his father, who had been all his life in the army, was being described as a former agent of Congress leader Arjun Singh. Such things would ultimately come to hurt the people in power.

I am not saying that all journalists are paragons of virtues. They too share the responsibility of the current ills in society. The negative type of journalism, which has become the order of the day, is making readers and viewers into cynics. When a journalist takes up cudgels against the establishment and throws light on its misdeeds, he should be commended, not condemned.

The government cannot set at rest the fears, however exaggerated, through statements or TV debates. It would have been better if there had been a discussion in Parliament. But that has been sacrificed at the altar of politics. The Opposition is to be blamed for it. Their leaders were discussing the matter on different TV channels but refusing a debate in Parliament. Both Houses have been devalued. I wish George Fernandes, who has been accused of certain failings, had not been retained as the convenor of the ruling National Democratic Alliance. This challenges the norms of probity. It is like saying: ``We do not care.'' Democracy is primarily a set of healthy traditions. The government is doing its best to damage them.

What has remained inexplicable is the failure of the intelligence agencies. The Tehelka people went about the job for 10 months, meeting top people in the defence ministry and in political offices of party chiefs. There was not a whiff of information to our intelligence men. It is a sad reflection on their working. They remind me of the faltering men in Green Graham's book, Men From Havana, which exposes the ineptness of sleuths.

The PMO has reduced most wings of government to mere instruments that carry out its orders. Such functioning does not make sense in a democratic set-up.