NEWSLINKS US EDITION COLUMNISTS DIARY SPECIALS INTERVIEWS CAPITAL BUZZ REDIFF POLL THE STATES ELECTIONS ARCHIVES SEARCH REDIFF
Parliament, successive governments and political parties have not been very enthusiastic about cleaning the mess in defence procurement created by middlemen, corrupt bureaucrats and some mischievous men in uniform, reveal Parliament records and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The only reliable and sensible audit of the Indian government's accounts, including defence deals are the annual audits conducted by Comptroller and Auditor General of India. These reports are tabled in Parliament, usually during the Budget session.
The Public Accounts Committee, constituting Members of Parliament, which is expected to scrutinise CAG audits and initiate action, has not even bothered to discuss several important defence audits.
The reason partially lies in the political instability of recent times, point out a senior government official. "The main reason is something else," he admits.
Once placed in Parliament, the CAG audits are supposed to be discussed by the PAC. The committee of parliamentarians from both ruling and opposition parties is supposed to recommend action to concerned ministries.
The CAG functions independent of government and its reports are very critical of the government without naming any official, but it frequently exposes misdeeds of bureaucrats and politicians.
The response to these audits have been shabby, reveal records. The CAG has always shown courage to audit the most controversial cases, from Bofors to the Sukhoi-30 purchase.
In fact, the audit of Air Force's Sukhoi-30 fighter jet deal with Russia which had revealed massive misdeeds has only been heard once by the PAC till now. That too was an initial hearing.
There have been several media reports alleging bribes running into hundreds of millions of rupees.
"We hope to have more hearings on it," says a source in PAC.
The Sukhoi-30 deal, executed in November 1996, was worth Rs 63 billion and was to replace the aging fleet of the Indian Air Force. The audit is damning, and the CAG points out how the IAF and the government acted on unjustifiable projections on the induction of the aircraft.
"There are various factors that lead to sloppiness. Political uncertainties definitely play an important role," admits a senior government official.
He says in the recent years the CAG audits have failed to elicit the kind of response they should. "No one is actually bothered," he admits.
Over the years, there have been several efforts to bring back the importance of CAG, so as to have the annual audits as a check against bureaucratic and political irresponsibility.
The draft paragraphs of the audits are always sent to secretaries of the concerned ministries/departments drawing their attention and asking for their response in six weeks. This exercise so as to give them a chance to clarify their stand in the final report.
In most cases, the secretaries do not respond. Almost every year, even responses by secretaries are very selective, answering only comfortable audits. And it has been recorded in several instances by the CAG in subsequent reports.
In 1982, the then PAC had issued directions to all ministries to report to the PAC action taken on every audit objection. Still there was no proper response.
And in April 1997, a frustrated PAC desired that all action taken reports be sent within four months from the date of laying of CAG reports in Parliament. But that doesn't happen often.
Even by January 2000, the action taken reports for the audit report of year ending March 1997 had not been filed.
The Complete Coverage | Defence sites
Back to top
Tell us what you think of this report
