The marvelous thing about conflict of interest in India is how blissfully our political class is completely unaware of it. We are all reared in a culture where a good and upstanding pillar of society is identified by his fulfillment of his duty to his family, clan and caste before anything or anyone else. In a classic exchange earlier this year a prominent politician, criticized for favouring his son in an appointment, retorted: "Of course I favoured my son! Then whose son should I favour? A stranger's?"
No wonder Sushma Swaraj thought nothing of intervening with a foreign government in favour of an absconding Indian citizen, wanted by the law enforcement agencies of our own country. In any other democracy, even if such a matter had come to her desk, she would have been expected to recuse herself from all involvement because her husband and daughter happened to be the legal representatives of the person concerned. I doubt the thought of recusal even occurred to her. Favours, after all, are done for one's friends; why step back from an opportunity to do one?
A conflict of interest exists when any official's fiduciary responsibility to the obligations of his or her official position clashes with a personal interest, e.g. a sense of duty towards a friend. The Sushma case fits so obviously within that definition that it could almost be a classic example for a case-study on conflict of interest. But of course, she doesn't see it that way, and - though she didn't even keep her Foreign Secretary informed of her intervention, clinching proof that she knew she was doing something improper - nor does her government.
I suspect Sushmaji genuinely persuaded herself that she had done the right thing, one that would win her much merit in the karmic balance-sheet. It was, after all, she says, a "humanitarian" gesture. The fact that its beneficiary happened to be partying (and posting pictures of himself doing so) in half the most expensive resorts of Europe did not, in her eyes, diminish the purity of her motives. And the fact that her own daughter was the lawyer of an individual whose passport was revoked in March 2011 (and whose challenge was rejected by a single judge in the Delhi High Court in January 2013) seemed irrelevant to her when she intervened. Or perhaps all too relevant!
To add to the conflict of interest, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had issued a notice to the same individual for foreign exchange violations of up to Rs 425 crores; a "light blue corner notice" had been circulated to all Indian ports and airports for his arrest upon arrival. Did the Foreign Minister perceive it to be in her interest to help a government department fulfil its mandate, or was it more in her interest to protect and enable her husband's friend and her daughter's client? Conflict of interest, anyone?
Or take Vasundhara Raje Scindia. It turns out the Chief Minister of Rajasthan (then the once and future holder of that designation) also supported the same individual's residency application to the British authorities on the "strict condition that my [i.e. Raje's] assistance will not become known to the Indian authorities"! In other words, I wish to help my friend, but please do not reveal (especially to the Government of India) that I have done so. After all, the friend in question (a very questionable individual) had transferred Rs 11.63 crore to Raje's son's company by valuing ten-rupee shares at a thousand times their worth. Could that imply a conflict of interest that would explain the extraordinary "unattributable" support for his "leave to remain" beyond the reach of Indian law enforcement in the UK? Conflict of interest? Perish the thought!
The Home Minister of India, no less, made it clear that such mundane considerations as conflict of interest do not apply to the exalted panjandrums of the NDA. "Resignations? That's for the UPA government, not for us," he declared. "There will be no resignations over such issues in the NDA." Conflict of interest is something that happens to other people - those who have a conscience. Not to us, who have been divinely ordained to rule as we see fit.
I hope some intrepid soul will take the entire issue to the Supreme Court and seek a direction that spells out conflict of interest duties and obligations. These must be enforceable, unlike the existing code of conduct for ministers, which was strongly upheld by the UPA but cheerfully ignored by the current government.
When I joined the Government in May 2009 I was startled to be told by the Cabinet Secretary that I must relinquish every one of my advisory board positions - every single one of them honorary - because of a possible conflict of interest. When I pointed out that these mostly related to human rights and humanitarian organizations and educational institutions, he explained that no cause, however worthy, could benefit from the patronage of a Government minister, because a conflict of interest could arise. I duly resigned from all these positions. I wonder whether the new Cabinet Secretary has found occasion to enlighten the current External Affairs Minister about her obligations under the existing code of conduct for ministers and public servants.
But the real problem, of course, is implicit in the Home Minister's defiant stand that NDA Ministers don't resign. It's part of an overall pattern we have seen from this Government. They have taken no steps to appoint a Lokpal or ensure that the institutions created by the Lokpal Bill start functioning. They kept the post of Chief Central Vigilance Commissioner vacant for several months before finally filling it with an appointee who has yet to find any grounds for action in the conduct of the BJP's ministers. It's not a pretty picture.
The only hope is that the media exposure of wrongdoing will prompt public interest litigation that in turn might give us a Supreme Court directive on conflict of interest. But how sad it is that our democracy needs the judiciary to do what any honest government ought to be able to do for itself.
Unfortunately, ours is a government that proclaims its own virtue from the rooftops, but declines to spell out the standards it holds its own leaders to. Perhaps because it doesn't have any. The BJP's answer to charges of conflict of interest appears simple enough: self-interest will always prevail over the national interest. Then where's the conflict?
Note: This piece has been edited to remove a statement that incorrectly said the assets of NDA ministers are not listed publicly.(Dr Shashi Tharoor is a two-time MP from Thiruvananthapuram, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, the former Union Minister of State for External Affairs and Human Resource Development and the former UN Under-Secretary-General. He has written 15 books, including, most recently, India Shastra: Reflections On the Nation in Our Time.)Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.