IAS officer reply to World Bank Employee on eGovMUDDLE of NISG

The Larger Question 

http://www.dqindia.com/content/spotlight/2005/105111001.asp
 
 
Thursday, November 10, 2005

I was amused to see the reaction of Srivatsa Krishna in "Counterpoint: Ring-Fencing the Good" (October 15, 2005). He has skirted around the main issue, which is: corruption in the e-procurement/e-governance deal. Instead of giving answers, it has raised more questions. Every Indian citizen who expects honesty in pubic life expects an acceptable explanation from the officials concerned in these allegations. The larger question posed by the chairman of Keonics on the e-procurement scam still remains unanswered, while the corruption dragon had moved on to Karnataka with the same coterie at the forefront. 

NISG, a private limited company, still continues to handle huge e-governance funds of the government, mobilized from sources such as UNDP, while other private companies are not given any such privileges. Promoting Microsoft's proprietary technology in e-governance at a huge cost, when open-source software (OSS) technology is available almost free of cost, raises serious questions too, especially in the light of the developed nations themselves resolving to adopt OSS in e-governance. 

 http://www.dqindia.com/content/spotlight/2005/105111001.asp

It is imperative that the clouds of doubt on e-governance projects be cleared, as e-governance itself is meant for transparency and reducing corruption. The very fact that someone like me-who had initiated large-scale, process automation-based e-governance initiatives in district administration during 1999-2001-had started doubting the e-governance initiatives at the national level and state level, shows that all is not well with the e-governance initiatives of the nation. 

It is commendable on the part of Dataquest for having taken the pains to understand the true meaning of e-governance. Srivatsa Krishna, IAS, currently has been working with the World Bank in Washington, DC on deputation has aired his personal views. Equally, I have also shared my personal views on the subject of suspected massive corruption in handling funds meant for e-governance. There appears to be a design to monopolize the government's IT spending only through certain chosen companies, using non-transparent means. I have attempted to highlight this irregularity. 

I started my career as sub-collector in Mayiladuthurai (Nagapattinam district) and I was transferred to Cheyyar revenue division of Tiruvannamalai district during January 1994, when I refused to sanction 60,000 bogus cyclone-relief cases. 

Then, from Cheyyar, I was posted as additional collector (revenue) in Tiruchirapalli district and thereafter transferred to Madurai (February 1995). While working at Madurai during 1995, I refused to follow the dictates of the then district collector to help siphon off central government funds meant for the rural poor. Again, I was transferred out. This time I moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), making serious allegations of corruption in the construction of cremation sheds for the poor. The Madras High court initiated suo moto public interest litigation (PIL) and I was directed to present the facts. I filed an affidavit and on that basis the Madras High Court ordered a CBI enquiry into the scandal in February 1996. Two ministers, several IAS officers, and others have been arrested and charged by the CBI for various offences. The cases are still pending. 

When I questioned the order of transfer and made allegations of corruption, the very same allegation (which is now quoted by Srivatsa Krishna) was made against me before the CAT as well as before the Madras High Court. But the high court ignored those allegations. The truth is that I had earned for the government nearly Rs 15 lakh, by way of interest, by depositing the surplus money of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Madurai, in State Bank of India, Madras Main branch during 1995. There is nothing unusual about depositing surplus money in high-interest-yielding deposits. The finance department of every state government does it as a matter of routine with regard to certain earmarked funds. The deposit was in the name of the DRDA (government) and in a government-owned bank (SBI). I used my brother's contact in the process, when he was working in the Tiruchirapalli branch (350 km from Chennai) at that time. For having earned a hefty interest of 11.5% to 13% and an actual accrual of interest to the tune of nearly Rs 15 lakhs, I have been targeted by the accused in the cremation sheds scam as well as by a World Bank official such as Srivatsa! 

It appears that Srivatsa Krishna has easy access to the Tamil Nadu Secretariat's 'strictly confidential' files. Srivatsa is correct that I received a show-cause notice from the current AIADMK government in the beginning of 2004 as to why I deposited money in SBI where my brother was working. This is a confidential issue known only to me and the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is open to question how Srivatsa came to know about this strictly confidential subject of Tamil Nadu's Secretariat. Living in Washington, yet having access to confidential personal information file of an IAS officer in Tamil Nadu Secretariat raises serious questions!

It is a different matter that the deposit was made in Madras main branch of SBI, when my brother was working in Tiruchirapalli (350 kms from Chennai). Srivatsa should also be aware that when I served in Tiruvarur district as its district collector during 1999-2001, large-scale e-governance practices resulted in the district being declared the 'corrupt-free district in TamilNadu' by a group of prominent NGOs in Chennai. I was also declared 'the man of the next millennium among the bureaucrats in India' for e-governance work by the Week magazine in its millennium issue. 

Srivatsa had strongly defended the 'reputation' of IAS officers. I wish I could subscribe to his theory. As a joint vigilance commissioner (1996-97), I had the occasion to look into several files concerning IAS officers. My vigilance 'position notes' submitted to the government would disclose the extent of corruption afflicting politicians, bureaucrats, including IAS officers. Words and deeds should bring out the reputation of an honest officer, not mere gossip. 

As Srivatsa says, Satyanarayana and his NISG are not answerable to the government. This is precisely our concern. NISG, a private limited company, handles crores of rupees of public money. Without the Government of India agreeing to the proposal, UNDP (which is the sole financing agency for NISG) would not have agreed to invest a single penny in the name of e-governance. For that matter, no UN agency can spend its money on India's development unless it gets a case-by-case sanction from the respective ministries in Government of India. 

As NISG is a private limited company, it does not come under the purview of the Parliamentary committees, CVC, CBI, or CAG. NISG does not come under the purview of the recently promulgated RTI either. The expected spending on e-governance is to the order of Rs 25,000 crore in the next few years. As Srivatsa matures, he would understand the implications of these words. 

NISG's board cannot enquire into allegations against its own misdeeds, not absolve itself of all the allegations! It would be like acting as judge and the prosecuted simultaneously.

The entrustment of promotion of e-governance to a non-governmental organisation-namely the NISG of which J Satyanarayana is the CEO, and the manner in which e-governance is implemented in the state of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka-requires detailed investigation. I repeat this is my personal view, not the views of any organization in which I am working. 

Srivatsa had also talked about icons in the IAS, in the area of e-governance. India lives in villages. Till date, more than 40% of India's population lives below the poverty line. India has its quota of great icons such as Mahatma Gandhi and Dr Ambedkar. Mahatma Gandhi became an icon because he chose to identify himself with the masses and fought for their freedom. Dr Ambedkar became an icon because he chose to fight for the rights of the so-called untouchables when he could have lived a comfortable life by looking the other way. Among the living, Medha Padkar is a living icon as she chose to represent the tribals who have absolutely no powers. An icon in the field of e-governance should have worked for the upliftment of these masses, using e-governance tools. No one has cared for the widows and the old-age pensioners so far, by using e-governance tools. Although the schemes for these marginalized segments have been in vogue for more than 10 years. There is no e-governance for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes who constitute the worst among the marginalized population in India. There is no e-governance in any of the rural development schemes of the Government of India or in any of the state governments, save for some computerized reporting mechanisms. Bribery, deception, and corruption are part of the lives of these people, who are categorized as 'below the poverty line' in the panchayat registers. Has any icon cared to look at them?

E-seva of Andhra Pradesh or Bangalore One of Karnataka could never come under this category. E-procurement initiative of AP has so many unanswered questions. Real e-governance is yet to be fully spotted in India.

We are not concerned with funds belonging to individuals or private companies. The subject relates to use of public funds to provide e-governance for the welfare of common man. It is a case of trust. When there is an allegation about breach of trust by men entrusted with public money, there should be proper investigation and if it found true, the guilty should be punished. There are attempts to shield the corrupt. The 'Counter point' of Srivatsa Krishna, IAS, only reinforces the resolve to fight corruption more vigorously. 

C Umashankar, IAS Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings Salem, Tamil Nadu

COUNTER POINT to eGovMUDDLE by World Bank Employee writng on behalf of NISG

Ring-Fencing the Good

COUNTER POINT Article in DATA QUEST

http://www.dqindia.com/content/industrymarket/newsanalysis/2005/105102801.asp

Friday, October 28, 2005

India singularly lacks icons. Neither does India know as to how to celebrate its icons. Much of this is true except perhaps in the world of sports, software and movies, where we do cherish our icons. This is in response to "The Egovernance Muddle" by Shubendhu Parth dated September 2, 2005.

R Chandrashekhar and J Satyanarayana are not ordinary IAS officers-they are icons of the IAS, the creators of e-governance in India, and are responsible for creating from scratch, projects which have added tremendous value to the everyday life of the harried common man. If they had been born in any other country, like the United States, they would have been held up as national treasures. But, we, rather than applauding their feats, and recognizing how many minefields they had to go through professionally to make them happen, choose the easy path of sending an email or two, writing trash and innuendo hoping that it would substitute for solid analysis which ought to precede an investigative article.

Slaying middle class icons through an unfair and one-sided trial by media is wrong and unfair. It is shocking to see that a magazine of Dataquest's repute can lend its credibility to any sleaze and stoop to such levels.

It wouldn't be difficult for someone to talk to a few rivals and concoct some allegations against the author concerned or anyone else and write an equally strong article. Will DQ publish that too? DQ must understand that the power it has, comes with a responsibility to use it sanely and not just find a conspiracy theory (and a conspiracy theorist) to fit every story deadline; nor can reporters be allowed to pass off innuendo as analysis, and rubbish as evidence to support it, all to permanently tarnish the reputation of an honest IAS officer. And reputation is the only asset that an IAS officer earns during his lifetime in the service. To allow it to be tarnished at the hands of a cub reporter, who has no clue either how to do an investigative piece, is simply sacrilege.

I have had the singular privilege of working with both these gentlemen for several years. Not once, not on a single occasion, was there a mis-step, or a dubious suggestion or even the whiff of being pliable or favoring anyone. Not once. These are officers who would rather break than bend.

By the way, for the record, I do not work with the government any longer, haven't been in touch with Mr Satyanarayana since I left India, don't have anything to do with e-governance anymore and don't really have to stand up for either of my colleagues, lest someone is quick to dismiss my arguments as brown-nosing. I am doing so, only because I feel strongly about the general principle of ring-fencing the good, and know enough about the person in question, have seen the lifestyle he lives, have observed the decisions he makes from close quarters and the principles he values, to believe that the charges in DQ's article are simply blasphemous.

Onto the allegations of misconduct:
[First] NISG is not a public sector undertaking. It is owned 51% by India's best private IT players, and 49% by the government. Those very players whom Dataquest has put up on a pedestal, time and time again (and for good reasons), as national treasures. So Satyanarayana is technically not really answerable to the government, much less to every carping critic. He is answerable to the Board of NISG, which has government nominees, which he himself opted to do, by placing the various charges against him, in front of them. And the Board, in all its wisdom dismissed them as rubbish. A credible reporter would have checked this.

[Second] I have known Pradeep Gupta, a distinguished alumnus of IIT and IIM, and the publisher of DQ, to be a fine gentleman and a tremendous supporter of the IT industry. If all that is needed to be done is to send an email with some make-believe allegations, perhaps titled: "Are you the CEO of CyberMedia or are you corrupt?" to make a DQ cub reporter scramble to write a piece that can tarnish a sincere and good person's reputation in print, every business rival will send an email avalanche right away! If an over-enthusiastic reporter decides to act as irresponsibly as he has done now on every piece of gossip that he chances upon, perhaps to beat some other publication to carrying it, no honest IAS officer will ever be able to function in India.

[Third] It is a sad moment for the IAS, that someone like C Umashankar, who is personally known to be not corrupt and who has done some good work in Tiruvarur, has chosen such a medium to attack another service colleague. These allegations have as much credibility as the allegations that Umashankar as Additional Collector, Tiruchirapalli, deposited DRDA funds into a bank, where his own brother was the branch manager! (Incidentally, Umashankar himself has been served a show cause notice by the Government of Tamil Nadu on this and other charges, and jumping to the conclusion that Satyanarayana is corrupt, would be as ridiculous as jumping to one about Umashankar's honesty before the enquiry is completed). Would it be fair to write off the good work that he did in Tiruvarur if some crank chooses to send an email or two against him, even if that crank is in the IAS or in the media?

[Fourth] Since when was it mandated by the Constitution that the CVC has to respond to every piece of trash emailed to him by some cub reporter, which itself is then used as evidence of Satyanarayana's guilt! Does the CVC have nothing better to do? Whatever happened to the principle of locus standi?

[Fifth] The story is factually incorrect about Umashankar being a member of DIT's working group on the implementation of e-governance. Another example of factual inaccuracy in the story.

[Sixth] Is NISG under some Constitutional obligation to ensure that it equitably distributes its projects in a socialistic spirit among every Tom, Dick and Harry, who decides to float an IT consulting firm and bid for a project? It is quite natural that there will be firms who will get more projects than some others. Without studying every tender, their terms and conditions, the bidders and their proposals, how can [the author] come to such shocking conclusions so trivially?! Merely because 6 projects went to PWC-why even if all 10 projects were to go to PWC-does it mean that there was corruption involved? It is ridiculous to arrive at this conclusion, prima facie, based on just this and the fact that another IAS officer is saying so!

[Lastly] Just because someone goes for a limited tender, does it mean that there is corruption involved? Why is that route available to administrators at all, in the first place, if using it would be equated with being corrupt? Would any IAS officer ever be proactive or take risks to serve the common weal? And then the very same cub reporter, would write that the IAS is indecisive; that IAS officers do not take decisions, that there are delays in implementing projects of national importance etc. In such circumstances would even the most dynamic IT CEO of India, dare take decisions? And on the side continue to fight all those, from within and outside the system, who have no 'conduct' rules, whereas for the honest IAS officer every possible 'conduct' rule is supposed to apply? This kind of a thing will happen only to someone who is trying to do something good, not to someone who does nothing at all and is a mere spectator inside the government.

If DQ wanted to truly do an honest investigative piece, it should have found out the reasons for a limited tender and whether they were malafide in any way, shown that tender conditions were manipulated, that they were manipulated by Satyanarayana to favour a particular firm, and that there was a 'quid pro quo" (as required by law) involved somewhere, to prove his malfeasance. To rely on emails floating around in a chat group as concrete evidence of proof of corruption against someone who has done solid, enduring work, and whose reputation precedes him for 30 years in the IAS as an impeccably honest officer, is a great dis-service to e-governance, to credible journalism and to India, all three of which DQ professes to serve.
It is truly unfortunate that Dataquest has lent its credibility to such allegations, which are blatantly false and that the author has not even tried to do proper research to determine whether they are right or wrong, in an analytical manner- it demeans Dataquest as a magazine. The least the author can now do is to publish an unqualified apology in print, as prominently as possible. In the light of all the facts in this article, we urge DQ to consider this seriously.

Having said this, I do agree with the author's contention that RFP evaluators must not partner with vendors to form consortiums to bid for other similar projects. It's a bit akin to what shook the world of auditing long ago when the lines between consulting and auditing functions got blurred in some of the Big Five firms. This is the only sensible point that he makes in his story.

The larger question is: how do we ring-fence the good? We are quick to point fingers at anyone successful-it is almost a national culture of crabbiness. The only way to do so is to redefine collective security for the good officers in the IAS. An attack against one honest IAS officer, whose reputation precedes him, be it by the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister or from the media must be treated as an attack against all like-minded good IAS officers. Everyone must unite to surround and ring-fence him, perhaps using methods similar to the civil disobedience that Delhi recently saw during the power tariff hike, to protect him from harassment.

Wouldn't the press jump to the defense of one of its own kin, if they are attacked? Don't lawyers go on strike routinely when another lawyer is targeted? Don't brother judges routinely look after their brethren against false allegations? Why then can't the IAS do so too? Why can't the National IAS Association stand up, and ring-fence the good through some mechanism agreed upon? And identify, and weed out the bad? In the process, it would be a first step towards celebrating icons in India. India needs icons, needs heroes, and desperately at that. Especially from the middle class, so that many more icons can be created, by emulating them.

-Srivatsa Krishna, IAS is currently with the World Bank in Washington, DC. These are his personal views and not of
any organization he is associated with in any form or manner.

Dataquest response
The Dataquest investigation and report was triggered by allegations made by Umashankar C, IAS, in his mail to NISG CEO J Satyanarana, IAS. But that was not the only basis. There was also the petition sent by KEONICS chairperson Manjula Nagaraj P to the AP CM, asking for an enquiry into projects handled by Satyanarayna. Our report was based on these, and on our discussions with the industry and other government employees.

As a matter of due process Dataquest sought clarifications from Satyanarayna, PwC, DIT and CVC, and their responses were reported. We requested Satyanarayana to respond in four days (August 8 to August 12) and not in "24 hours".

Incidentally, in the electronic media, response deadlines of a few hours are commonplace. While we did not get the CVC response till the time of filing the story, the DIT's response giving a clean chit to NISG and Satyanarayna was adequately accommodated in the story.

On Umashankar's appointment in the DIT's working group on e-governance: Dataquest has copies of the office memo of January 27, 2005, nominating Umashankar to the working group. And a copy of a letter dated August 12, 2005, reversing this-"it has been decided that there shall be no permanent special invitees to the working group."

On NISG's obligations and status: NISG is a Section 25 company. A question that needs to be asked is: why should NISG, a company owned 51% by private sector players, be given projects directly, without any tender process? Several bureaucrats told us they prefer giving projects to NISG just because it's the national institution driving India's e-governance initiative.

'Cub reporter' is not an accurate description of an award winning journalist with 14 years experience, including nine in the Indian Express and elsewhere. Shubhendu Parth won the Polestar Award in 2000, headed CyberMedia News 2003-2005, and has to his credit significant investigations such as the Nigeria 419 scam report in Dataquest in 2003, uncovering gangs operating out of Nigeria, China, Taiwan, et al. His probe led to the registration of the first Nigeria 419 case in India, and also caused the Hong Kong Monetary Authority to initiate an inquiry on some of the companies.

-Ed

http://www.dqindia.com/content/industrymarket/newsanalysis/2005/105102801.asp

The Larger Question