COMPUTER FORENSICS
(1) Computer forensics deals with identification, documentation, extraction
and preservation of computer evidence. Typically, computer forensic
tools exist in form of computer software and hardware, procedures and
communication protocols. To ensure accuracy and reliability of computer
evidence, it is imperative to go for cross validation of the results through
use of multiple tools and techniques and standard procedures.
Vigilance Manual 2017
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
308
In terms of Section 2 (1) (h) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, a
computer is any electronic, magnetic, optical or other high-speed data
processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic and
memory functions by manipulation of electronic, magnetic or optical
impulses, and includes all inputs, outputs, processing, storage, computer
software or communication facilities which are related or connected to
the computer in a computer system or computer network.
A computer system is a device or collection of devices, having interface
with input and output support device, which are programmable; and
can be used for performing logic, arithmetic, data storage and retrieval,
communication control and other functions making use of computer
programmes, electronic instructions and input / output data. Computer
network refers to interconnection of one or more computers through
communications media.
(2) With growing and widespread use of computer technology, a computing
machine / computer system / communication network can be used for
committing irregularities / crimes; at the same time, these objects can
also be victims of nefarious activities. The first step in the direction of
committing such activities is to have access to a computer / computer
system / computer network; the access may be physical or from a remote
location through a communication network. Though unauthorised and
remote access to a computer / computer system makes investigation in
to an act of omission or Commission difficult, we need to realise that
such acts, like any other conventional irregularity / crime, leave behind
evidence at the scene of crime.
Electronic evidence normally consists of an electronic record which,
in turn, may be in form of data, image or sound stored, received or sent
in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.
Computer data means a representation of information, knowledge, facts,
concepts or instructions, prepared in a formalized manner and intended
to be processed in a computer system or computer network. Significant
digital sources of evidence include computers, mobile devices, removable
media and external data storage devices, online banking software, e-mail/
Vigilance Manual 2017 309
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
notes / letters, telephone records, financial or asset records, electronic
money transfers, accounting or record keeping software, etc.
(3) A computer forensic examination may reveal when a document first
appeared on a computer, when it was last edited, when it was last
saved or printed, and which user carried out these actions. It can detect
sophisticated money trails / movement of proceeds of corruption. As
much of the day-to-day communication and financial transactions are
conducted over the Internet, real time monitoring of bank accounts, e-mail
traffic and the interception and processing of other forms of on-line data
become important for conducting a proper investigation, complementing
traditional investigative and surveillance techniques.
However, all these activities require the assistance of a digital forensic
expert. The Cyber Forensic Laboratory and Digital Imaging Centre,
functioning under CFSL / CBI, assist investigating / enforcement agencies
in the collection and forensic analysis of electronic evidence. Services of
other such forensic laboratories of Central / State Government or NABL
accredited laboratories may also be used for this purpose.
11.6.2 TRAINING IN FORENSIC SCIENCE
Commission expects that Departments / Organisations should take steps
to build capacity of their personnel, engaged in vigilance inquiries
& investigations and disciplinary matters, etc., in Forensic Sciences.
Commission has organised several training courses for CVOs and vigilance
functionariesin several premier institutes. Some of the organisations have
also got tailor-made courses organised.
Thursday, 7 September 2017
Fundamental Duties
Fundamental Duties:
Article 51A of Indian Constitution casts certain duties on every citizen
including cherishing and following noble ideals.
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India, —
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the
national Flag and the National Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle
for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to
do so;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst
all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or
sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of
women;
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and
reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective
activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour
and achievement;
(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his
child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen
years.
It can be said that a natural corollary of these duties explicitly mandated,
is a duty to be honest and to oppose corruption.
integrity pledge
Integrity Pledge:
To foster probity and integrity in public life, the Commission has launched
an 'Integrity Pledge' which can be taken electronically by the citizen as
well as by organisations. It can be accessed on the Commission's website
at www.pledge.cvc.in.
By taking the Integrity pledge, citizens commit to uphold highest
standards of honesty & integrity by following probity and rule of law in
all walks of life, to neither take nor offer bribe, to perform all tasks with
honesty and transparency, act in public interest and report any incident
of corruption to appropriate authority.
Similarly, by taking the integrity pledge, organisation viz., corporate/
entities / firms, etc., would affirm their commitment to eradicate
corruption and to uphold highest standards of integrity & good governance
by promoting a culture of honesty and integrity in the conduct of
their activities. Organisations would pledge to neither offer nor accept
bribe, commit to good corporate governance based on transparency,
accountability and fairness, adhere to relevant laws, rules and compliance
mechanisms in the conduct of business, adopt a code of ethics for all its
employees, sensitise their employees of laws, regulations, etc., relevant
to their work for honest discharge of their duties, provide grievance
redressal and Whistle Blower mechanisms for reporting grievances and
fraudulent activities and protect the rights and interests of stakeholders
and the society at large.
ETHICAL CONDUCT
Encouraging ethical conduct:
Corruption mainly includes abuse of authority and selfish exercise
of power by those who hold special position in public life. Hence,
corruption can be linked to lack of ethical values. Combating corruption
is, therefore, not just a matter of making laws and creating institutions, but
is deeply rooted in human values, ethics and morality of the individuals,
organisations and the society at large. Inculcating ethical and moral
values in the citizen -. Truthfulness, Honesty, Integrity, Probity, Courage,
Uprightness, Respect for and obedience to law, etc. - is the foundation
stone of any society’s fight against corruption. Stigmatising the culture
of Corruption, favouritism, nepotism and promoting meritocracy create
a conducive social climate. Similarly, the spirit of ‘consumerism’ leads
to avarice and craving for easy money. If the Citizen is taught to say ‘No
Vigilance Manual 2017
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
302
to Bribe’, the ‘Supply side of Corruption’ automatically gets stifled.
Parents, family, peer group, teachers, educational institutions, social
intellectual and spiritual leaders, civil society, press, mass media including
social media, Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs), etc. have a major role to play in the inculcation and dissemination
of high ethical and moral values in individuals, organisations and the
society at large
Right to Information Act , 2005
11.3 RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
(1) The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by the Government for
providing right to every citizen to secure access to information under
the control of the Public Authority concerned. Every Public Authority
covered under the RTI Act, 2005 receives a large number of applications
from the public, seeking information on various issues and the requested
information is to be given by the Central Public Information Officers
(CPIOs) / Public Information Officers (PIOs) concerned of the Public
Authorities. Under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, an Applicant has
the right to make an Appeal to the first Appellate Authority of the
Public Authority concerned, in case, he is not satisfied with the reply /
information provided to him by the CPIO / PIO concerned.
(2) The necessity for First Appeal arises due to the fact that there are
shortcomings / ambiguities in the reply / information provided by the
CPIO / PIO of the Public Authority concerned. However, it has been
observed that sometimes the First Appeal is made by the Appellant out
of ignorance of the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 or his / her lack of clarity
about the scope and limitation of the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
(3) Central Information Commission (CIC) is authorised under the RTI Act,
2005 to receive and enquire into a complaint and / or decide on Second
Appeal relating to deficiencies in supply of information to the RTI
Applicants by the Public Authority concerned. If the points mentioned
in para 11.3.4 below are kept in view by the various Public Authorities,
while replying to RTI Applicants, it may be useful in increasing the level
of satisfaction among the RTI Applicants and increased awareness among
the Applicants about the provisions, scope and limitations of RTI Act,
2005. With the increased knowledge about the provisions of RTI Act, 2005,
Vigilance Manual 2017 293
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
the Applicants would be in a better position to make RTI Applications in
an unambiguous manner, thus making it easier for the Public Authorities
also to provide an appropriate, clear and specific reply to the Applicants,
in letter and spirit of the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
(4) Common shortcomings noticed in the replies given by the CPIOs / PIOs
to the RTI Applicants and corrective measures thereon to be taken by the
authorities concerned are as under: -
(i) Many a time, while rejecting the Applicant’s request for information
sought by him, the reasons for such rejection / denial of the information
are not given by the CPIOs / PIOs concerned, which is a violation of Section
7(8)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIOs simply quote the Section of the
RTI Act, 2005, under which the information is being denied or they state
that the issue raised by the Applicant does not constitute ‘information’
as defined under Section 2(f) and 2(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, which is not
sufficient. The ‘reasons’, why exemption is being claimed from disclosure
and / or why the issue raised does not constitute ‘information’ and the
relevant rulings of the CIC and / or constitutional courts, etc., must be
explained to the Applicants.
(ii) In cases where the information is denied and the Applicant’s request
is being rejected, the period during which an Appeal may be preferred
and the particulars of the Appellate Authority are not mentioned in the
reply to the Applicant, which is a mandatory requirement under Section
7(8)(ii) and 7(8)(iii) of the RTI Act, 2005, in such cases. The CPIOs / PIOs
should provide these details to the Applicants, in case, information / a
part thereof is being denied to the Applicants.
(iii) Sometimes the reply to the Applicants is given in perfunctory manner,
without verifying the records of the organisation concerned. The
information as sought by the Applicants, should be given to them after
checking the records thoroughly.
(iv) Adherence to the time limit is essential in handling Applications received
under RTI Act, 2005. RTI Act, 2005 has specified time limits for different
stages and actions to be taken on Applications received by the Public
Authority concerned. Any applications / part(s) thereof, which are
Vigilance Manual 2017
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
294
required to be forwarded to other Public Authorities, should normally be
forwarded within 5 days of the receipt of the Application, in accordance
with Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(v) Under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, notice to the third party is to be
given only for that information pertaining to third party, which has been
treated as confidential by it. Such notice is to be given within 5 days of
the receipt of the request and a final decision regarding providing the
information is to be taken by the CPIO concerned, within 40 days of the
receipt of the request.
(vi) In many cases the CPIOs / PIOs delay the reply to the Applicants beyond
30 days’ time limit prescribed under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005,
without assigning any reason either on file and / or without informing
the Applicant. In case, it is not possible to give the information to the
Applicant within 30 days, the CPIOs / PIOs should send an interim reply
within 30 days’, informing the Applicants about the delay.
(vii) Sometimes there is delay in providing information to the Applicants on
the ground that the relevant files are under submission with the higher
authorities. In such cases, the CPIOs / PIOs should withdraw the files
‘temporarily’ for providing information to the RTI Applicants.
(viii) The CPIOs / PIOs while denying the information to the Applicants must
records the reasons in the file also to justify the denial / rejection of the
request of the Applicant.
(5) Many times, a question arises regarding disclosure of information
pertaining to disciplinary action / proceedings / show-cause notices /
punishments awarded to a public servant and financial details of a public
servant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 in the case of Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission and Ors. has ordered
that—
"The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices
and censure / punishment awarded to the third respondent from his
employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also
the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other
Vigilance Manual 2017 295
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated
to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends
and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought
for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The
question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned
information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in
clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details
called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third
respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure / punishment, etc.
are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section
8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The performance of an employee / officer in an
organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer
and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall
under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has
no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand,
the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of
that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority
is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot
claim those details as a matter of right.
The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal
information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, unless involves a larger public interest
and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information.
The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest
in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act, 2005.
We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in
establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest.
Vigilance Manual 2017
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
296
That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave
petition. Hence, the same is dismissed".
(6) The above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India may be
kept in view while deciding about disclosure of information relating to
disciplinary action / proceedings / show cause notices / punishments
awarded to a public servant and financial details of a public servant.
11.4 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Globalisation and rapid strides in technology have made territorial
boundaries irrelevant. Corruption has increasingly assumed transnational
ramifications afflicting nations all across. Hence, corruption can be tackled
at global level only with international cooperation. Countries have to
assist each other in investigations, prosecutions, judicial proceedings
and in recovery of proceeds of crime, etc. Mutual legal assistance may be
afforded by countries to the fullest extent possible through relevant laws,
treaties, agreements and arrangements. International cooperation may be
afforded in the area of law enforcement, joint investigation, extradition
of accused, transfer of proceedings, sharing of information, recovery
and repatriation of proceeds of crime, etc. The UN Convention Against
Corruption lays great emphasis on international cooperation in the fight
against corruption.
11.4.1 United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC):
(a) United Nations Convention Against Corruption is a multilateral convention,
which has been negotiated by members of United Nations. It is the first
global, legally binding international anti-corruption instrument, which
was initially adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 31st
October, 2003. It has since been ratified by a total of 178 parties upto 31st
December, 2015, which includes 175 United Nations Member States, apart
from the Cook Islands, the State of Palestine and the European Union.
India has ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in
May, 2011.
(b) United Nations Convention Against Corruption requires the State Parties to
implement several anti-corruption measures including Whistle Blowing
mechanism which may affect their laws, institutions and practices. These
Vigilance Manual 2017 297
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
measures aim at preventing corruption, including domestic and foreign
bribery, embezzlement, trading in influence and money laundering.
UNCAC is intended to strengthen international law enforcement and
judicial cooperation, providing effective legal mechanisms for asset
recovery, technical assistance and information exchange, and mechanisms
for implementation of the convention, including the Conference of the
States Parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
(c) Chapter IV of United Nations Convention Against Corruption deals with
International Cooperation against Corruption. Article 46 provides for
Mutual Legal Assistance which are: -
(i) State Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual legal
assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in
relation to the offences covered by this Convention.
(ii) Mutual legal assistance shall be afforded to the fullest extent possible
under relevant laws, treaties, agreements and arrangements of the
requested State Party with respect to investigations, prosecutions and
judicial proceedings in relation to the offences for which a legal person
may be held liable in accordance with Article 26 of this Convention in
the requesting State Party.
(iii) Mutual legal assistance to be afforded in accordance with this article
may be requested for any of the following purposes: (a) Taking evidence
or statements from persons; (b) Effecting service of judicial documents;
(c) Executing searches and seizures, and freezing; (d) Examining
objects and sites; (e) Providing information, evidentiary items and
expert evaluations; (f) Providing originals or certified copies of relevant
documents and records, including Government, bank, financial, corporate
or business records; (g) Identifying or tracing proceeds of crime, property,
instrumentalities or other things for evidentiary purposes; (h) Facilitating
the voluntary appearance of persons in the requesting State Party; (i) Any
other type of assistance that is not contrary to the domestic law of the
requested State Party; (j) Identifying, freezing and tracing proceeds of
crime in accordance with the provisions of chapter V of this Convention;
(k) The recovery of assets, in accordance with the provisions of chapter
V of this Convention.
Vigilance Manual 2017
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
298
(d) India is a member of Interpol and the NCB-Delhi which is the Interpol
wing in India, functions as a branch of CBI. NCB-Delhi is the sole
authorised agency in India for contacts with the Police agencies of other
countries. Besides, India also has Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT)
with 39 countries, Extradition Treaty with 37 countries and Extradition
arrangement with 7 countries which facilitate International Cooperation
for the purpose of compliance with Article 46 of UNCAC. For more detail,
Chapter 25 of Crime Manual of CBI may be referred. How to provide /
seek assistance of Interpol is provided at the CBI web-link on Interpol /
MLAT.
(e) As per Government of India(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the
Ministry of Home Affairs is the nodal Ministry and the Central authority
for seeking and providing Mutual Legal Assistance in criminal law
matters. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) receives all such requests,
examines them and takes appropriate action. Cases pertaining to civil
and commercial matters are required to be taken up with the Ministry
of Law & Justice, which finalises and notifies treaties and arrangements
with other countries as per the relevant statutory provisions in the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, all requests for seeking assistance from a
foreign country including the service of all kinds of judicial processes or
other documents are directly submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs
in criminal law matters and to the Ministry of Law & Justice in civil and
commercial matters.
(f) Article 33 of United Nations Convention Against Corruption provides
for protection of Whistle Blower which says that "each State Party shall
consider incorporating into its domestic legal system appropriate measures
to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person
who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent
authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with
this Convention".
(g) The ratification of United Nations Convention Against Corruption by India
necessitated creation of an appropriate whistle blowing mechanism and
review of the existing Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly,
the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 was enacted in May, 2014. The
Vigilance Manual 2017 299
Chapter - XI Some Relevant Issues
same however, is not in force as the Govt. of India aims to modify certain
provisions of Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011. A Bill to this effect
has been introduced in the Parliament to carry out the amendments. The
PIDPI Resolution 2004 contains provisions regarding protection to whistle
blowers. It is described in detail in Chapter IV of the Manual.
(h) The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 is an Act "to establish a
mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any allegation
of corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion
against any public servant and to inquire or cause an inquiry into such
disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards against victimization of
the person making such complaint and for matters connected therewith
and incidental thereto".
(i) India being one of the signatories to the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption has displayed its commitment to implement the provisions of
the same, in order to fight corruption and prevent inappropriate activities
in public life. A step in this direction was to amend some of the provisions
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by bringing out the Prevention of
Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013.
Preventive Vigilance Santhanam Committee recommendations Material for Ethics Paper Civils exam Mains
RECOMMENDATIONS OF SANTHANAM COMMITTEE
(a) “Corruption cannot be eliminated or even significantly reduced unless
preventive measures are planned and implemented in a sustained and
effective manner. Preventive action must include administrative, legal,
social, economic and educative measures” (Santhanam Committee Report,
1964).
(b) During a debate in Parliament in June, 1962 Members of Parliament
expressed concern over corruption in public administration and sought
remedial measures. In response, a Committee was set up under Shri K.
Santhanam, Member of Parliament which identified four major causes
of corruption, namely:
(i) administrative delays,
(ii) Government taking upon itself more than what it could manage by way
of regulatory functions,
(iii) scope for personal discretion in the exercise of powers vested in different
categories of Govt. servants and
(iv) Cumbersome procedures in dealing with various matters which were of
importance to citizens in their day to day affairs.
(c) The Santhanam Committee in its Report observed that the main effort for
checking corruption must come from within the Ministry / Department
and that it is important to be continuously on the watch for sensitive
spots rather than merely taking action when some case comes to notice.
It was suggested that Ministries undertake a systematic and thorough review of the laws, rules, procedures and practices for the purpose of listing discretionary powers, levels at which these are exercised, manner in which they are exercised, control over the exercise of such powers and the points at which citizens come into contact with the Departments and why. It was also recommended that a study should be made by Ministries of the extent, possible scope and modes of corruption, remedial measures prescribed and their effectiveness. (d) The Report deals in detail with the major causes of corruption and steps to deal with each. The Committee observed that: (i) Administrative delays must be reduced to the extent possible and firm action should be taken to eliminate causes of delay. (ii) Each Ministry should undertake a review of existing procedures and practices to find out causes of delay, points at which delay occurs and devise steps to minimize the same. (iii) Time limits should be prescribed and these should be strictly adhered to; those responsible for delays should be called to account. (iv) Levels at which files are to be processed and manner of decision making have also been prescribed. The Committee recommended that: (i) Ministries review their regulatory functions and whether the manner of discharge of those functions can be improved. (ii) while recognising that it may not be possible to completely eliminate discretion, it should be possible to devise a system of administration which would reduce the need for personal discretion, to a minimum. (iii) that a serious attempt be made to educate citizens about their rights and responsibilities and make arrangements to enable citizens’ access to the administration without having to go through intermediaries. Other preventive measures listed in the Report include: - (i) recruitment of officers / officials with high integrity, (ii) informal codes of conduct for different categories of Government servants
having agencies where a genuine complainant can seek redressal and protection from harassment, (iv) easy availability of forms required by the public for obtaining licenses, etc., (v) ban on Government servants accepting private employment after retirement among others. (e) Significant developments have taken place since the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee were made. In 2003, statutory status was conferred upon the Central Vigilance Commission and it also became a multi-member body. In 2004, it was made the designated authority to receive whistle blower complaints and to protect the whistle blowers. The institutional framework for addressing corruption has been progressively strengthened with the establishment of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Directorate of Enforcement, the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, State Anti-Corruption agencies and Lokayuktas and the legal framework has also expanded. There are also elaborate conduct rules which aim to promote integrity in public services and other policies and guidelines for transparency in recruitments and promotions.
10.2 THE CONCEPT OF PREVENTIVE VIGILANCE (i) Concept: It is adoption of a package of measures to improve systems and procedures to eliminate / reduce corruption, promote transparency and ease of doing business. (ii) Who is required to implement preventive vigilance measures? Preventive vigilance involves systemic improvements which besides reducing corruption also lead to better operational results. It is a tool of management and good governance and therefore, it is the duty of the management as a whole, and not of the CVO alone. Indeed, it can be said that it is the duty of every employee. 10.2.1 Causes of corruption: Preventive vigilance is aimed at identifying, tackling / addressing the root cause of corruption within the organisation. The common causes of corruption, inter alia, could be:
(a) Excessive regulation & licensing. (b) Complicated rules and regulations. (c) Monopoly over delivery of goods / services. (d) Lack of transparency. (e) Lack of accountability. (f) Too much discretionary power. (g) Poor regulatory framework. (h) Poor grievance redressal mechanism. (i) Very low rate of detection of corruption. (j) Lack of condemnation of corrupt practices by the public. (k) Absence of a formal system of inculcating values, ethics & integrity. (l) Inadequacy of regular / periodic / surprise checks. (m) Rigid bureaucratic framework / processes. (n) Lack of awareness about rights, duties, procedure to complain, rules, laws, etc. 10.3 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CORRUPTION Preventive vigilance is aimed at tackling the areas vulnerable to corruption within the organisation. Although potential areas of corruption are specific to organisations / sectors, there are some broad areas common to all organisations, which need special attention while putting in place a system of preventive vigilance. These relate to: - (a) Procurement: Procurement is a vast area ranging from procurement of store materials & services to execution of infrastructure projects. It is one of the major corruption prone areas in all organisations. (b) Sale of goods and services: The disposal of goods (the reverse of procurement) and services is also a major area of corruption in some organisations. Similarly, allocation of scarce and / or precious natural resources is an area of corruption. (c) Human resource management: Human resource management is common to all organisations and the processes relating to recruitment, promotion, transfer and posting are prone to manipulation and corruption.
Delivery of services to public: Although not common to all Public Sector Organisations, major Government Departments are involved in delivery of services which are a potential area of corruption. (e) Enforcement: The enforcement of Acts, Rules and Regulations is also an area vulnerable to corruption mainly due to lack of awareness among citizens and ineffective grievance redressal mechanism. 10.4 PREVENTIVE VIGILANCE MEASURES Preventive vigilance measures can broadly be categorized as: - (a) Simplification and standardisation of rules: Simplification and standardisation of rules and procedures results in elimination of discretion and arbitrariness, which in turn reduces corruption. Identifying areas involving exercise of discretion which are not governed by guidelines together with a complete review of existing rules and regulations needs to be undertaken to introduce clarity and accountability. Similarly, simplification and standardisation of forms / application also reduces scope for corruption. (b) Leveraging technology: Technology as an enabler for fighting corruption has been effectively demonstrated. E-procurements, E-payments, use of websites for dissemination of information and creating awareness, use of CCTV in places of public dealing, use of GPS enabled devices / RFIDs, use of appropriate analytical tools, computer assisted audit techniques for detecting frauds are examples of how technology strengthens the system of preventive vigilance. (c) Automation: Using IT as an enabler for reducing corruption along with business process re-engineering is recognized as an effective tool of preventive vigilance. Automation reduces interface / interaction between public officials and common public. It also removes monopoly in delivery of services and personal discretion, reducing the opportunities for discretion thus leading to reduction in corruption. Therefore, the organisations should strive to reduce interface of officials with common public / customers by way of automation / online services. However, IT systems are not an end in themselves; they are the means to an end. It
follows therefore that there is a need to develop a system of alerts as also a response mechanism. (d) Business Process Re-engineering (BPR): BPR is very important as it helps the organisations rethink how they do their work and in the process, encourages a full-scale re-creation of processes in order to meet the objectives of the organisation. Existing processes may be re-engineered to even prevent leakage of revenue. (e) Transparency: Transparency removes the information gap between the public and public officials which in turn reduces corruption. The website of the Department / Organisation should contain rules & regulations, contact details of officials and all other information useful for common public / customers. (f) Accountability: There is no fear of punitive action due to lack of accountability. A system with clear accountability and assigned responsibility at each level is necessary not only for smooth functioning but increased transparency, efficiency and for ensuring effective punitive action in case of misconduct. (g) Control & Supervision: Regular and routine inspections, surprise inspections, audit and reviews keep a check on aberrant and corrupt behaviour. A list of points and areas prone to corruption will facilitate the purpose of organising checks and streamlining procedures. A structured interaction between vigilance and internal audit will enable better monitoring and also help identify potential problem areas. (h) Early detection of misconducts: Early detection of misconducts apart from bringing to light the damages to the system, will enable recouping the loss wherever possible and facilitate control of further damage. (i) Time-bound and effective punitive action: Punitive (disciplinary or criminal) action within short period of occurrence of misconduct and finalisation of such cases in a time-bound manner resulting in award of exemplary and adequate (commensurate with gravity of misconduct) punishment deters others from committing such misconduct. Delays and inefficiencies in such proceedings encourages and emboldens others to
take risk of committing misconduct under the belief that nothing would happen to them. (j) Providing necessary infrastructural facilities: Non-provision of adequate infrastructural facilities such as accommodation, conveyance, utilities, etc. also induce corruption. (k) Training & Awareness: Capacity building and sensitization at all levels and across all functional areas is important. Public officials should be made aware of their duties and responsibilities, code of conduct, rules and regulations through regular training and awareness programmes. A list of Dos & Don’ts for employees / officials is a simple yet effective tool. Likewise, familiarization with Standard Operating Procedures relating to different spheres of activity will enhance awareness and reduce procedural violations / inadvertent errors arising out of a lack of awareness. Knowledge sharing initiatives such as publishing / circulating information relating to areas where fraud / misconduct has been detected and sharing information on best practices are other effective awareness generation methods for more effective preventive vigilance. There should also be an effort to create awareness among all stakeholders. (l) Conducive work environment: Conducive work environment for preventive vigilance may include drawing up a list of sensitive posts, rotation policy for sensitive posts, identification of persons of doubtful integrity and keeping them away from sensitive posts / public dealing. It would be necessary also to create an environment that promotes ethical behaviour. Protection to Whistle Blowers must be ensured in order to bring to light cases of corruption. (m) Awareness among public: If public is made aware of their rights, and also of the rules and regulations, then they are able to resist unfair treatment and arbitrary behaviour by public officials. Public should be encouraged to demand the services due to them and to raise their voice when their rights are denied or powers are misused by public officers. Organisations should prominently display information relevant / useful to the common public on their office notice board / website.
Inculcating Moral Values: Inculcating ethical behaviour among public, particularly the younger generation is an important tool of preventive vigilance. Vigilance Awareness Week (VAW), celebrated every year during the last week of October is aimed at creating such awareness. This opportunity should be utilized by all CVOs / Organisations to create awareness among public as well as among its own officials regarding need for imbibing right values. 10.5 INTEGRITY PACT 10.5.1 Integrity Pact (IP) is an important tool of preventive vigilance which is aimed at preventing corruption and ensuring integrity in public procurement. The Central Vigilance Commission is the nodal authority for the implementation of Integrity Pact in India. It addresses not only bribery, but also other corrupt practices such as collusion and bid rigging. IP is a written agreement between the Government / Government Department / Government Company, etc. and all the bidders agreeing to refrain themselves from bribery, collusion, etc. If the written agreement is violated, the pact describes the sanctions that shall apply. These include:- (i) Loss or denial of contract; (ii) Forfeiture of the bid or performance bond; (iii) Liability for damages; (iv) Exclusion from bidding on future contracts(debarment); and (v) Criminal or disciplinary action. 10.5.2 Integrity Pact has a monitoring system which provides for independent oversight. The Central Vigilance Commission nominates Independent External Monitors (IEMs) to monitor implementation of Integrity Pact. Thus, IP in its present form has three players – (i) The Principal or the Company / Department, (ii) The Vendor, and (iii) The Independent External Monitor (IEM). Vigilance Manual 2017 271 Chapter - X Preventive Vigilance 10.5.3(a) In order to ensure transparency, equity and competitiveness in public procurement, the Commission has been recommending adoption of Integrity Pact (IP) and implementation by Government organisations. CVC through its Office Order No. 41/12/07 dated 04.12.2007 and No. 43/12/07 dated 28.12.2007 as well as Circular and No. 24/08/08 dated 05.08.2008 recommended adoption of Integrity Pact to all the organisations and provided basic guidelines for its implementation in respect of major procurements in Government Organisations. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was issued by the Commission vide Office Order No. 10/5/09 dated 18.05.2009. (b) The Commission issued clarifications regarding the appointment, tenure and eligibility criteria of IEMs vide Circular No. 008/CRD/013 dated 11.08.2009 and No. 009/VGL/016 dated 19.04.2010. The review system for IEMs was modified vide Circular No. 008/CRD/013 dated 13.8.2010 and clarification regarding tenure of IEMs was issued by the Commission vide its Circular No. 011/VGL/053 dated 23.07.2012. (c) Department of Expenditure vide OM No. 14 (12)/2008– E-II (A) dated 19.07.2011, issued guidelines to all Ministries / Departments / Organisations including their attached / subordinate offices and autonomous bodies for implementation of IP. Also, vide OM No. 14 (12)/2008 – E- II (A) dated 20.07.2011, the Department of Expenditure requested Department of Public Enterprises for issuing directions to the Central Public Sector Enterprises for use of IP. (d) Further, in view of the increasing procurement activities of Public Sector Banks (PSBs), Insurance Companies (ICs) and Financial Institutions (FIs), the Commission vide Circular No. 02/02/2015 dated 25.02.2015 advised that all PSBs, PSICs and FIs shall also adopt and implement the Integrity Pact. 10.5.4 Adoption of Integrity Pact–Standard Operating Procedure; Independent External Monitor: The Commission appointed a Committee in December, 2015 under the Chairmanship of Shri P. Shankar, the former Central Vigilance Commissioner to review the entire scheme of Integrity Pact. After considering the report of the Committee, the Commission has issued a Vigilance Manual 2017 Chapter - X Preventive Vigilance 272 revised Standard Operating Procedure for adoption of Integrity Pact in Government Departments / Organisations vide Circular No. 02/01/2017 dated 13.01.2017. The salient points are as under: (A) Integrity Pact (1) The Pact essentially envisages an agreement between the prospective vendors / bidders and the buyer, committing the persons / officials of both sides, not to resort to any corrupt practices in any aspect / stage of the contract. Only those vendors / bidders, who commit themselves to such a Pact with the buyer, would be considered competent to participate in the bidding process. In other words, entering into this Pact would be a preliminary qualification. The essential ingredients of the Pact include: (a) Promise on the part of the principal not to seek or accept any benefit, which is not legally available; (b) Principal to treat all bidders with equity and reason; (c) Promise on the part of bidders not to offer any benefit to the employees of the Principal not available legally; (d) Bidders not to enter into any undisclosed agreement or understanding with other bidders with respect to prices, specifications, certifications, subsidiary contracts, etc. (e) Bidders not to pass any information provided by Principal as part of business relationship to others and not to commit any offence under PC Act or IPC; (f) Foreign bidders to disclose the name and address of agents and representatives in India and Indian Bidders to disclose their foreign principals or associates; (g) Bidders to disclose the payments to be made by them to agents/brokers or any other intermediary; (h) Bidders to disclose any transgressions with any other company that may impinge on the anti-corruption principle. (2) Integrity Pact, in respect of a particular contract, would be operative from the date IP is signed by both the parties till the final completion of the Vigilance Manual 2017 273 Chapter - X Preventive Vigilance contract. Any violation of the same would entail disqualification of the bidders and exclusion from future business dealings.
INTEGRITY INDEX 10.6.1
Commission is working on the development of a Comprehensive Integrity Index for organisations. It will be launched shortly. Through the Integrity Index for public organisations the Central Vigilance Commission has decided to adopt a strategy which will ensure transparent, accountable and efficient governance. The Index will be based on bench marking internal processes and controls within an organisation as well as management of relationship and expectation of outside stake holders.The main objectives for which the Integrity Index is to be established are: (i) Define what constitutes Integrity of Public Organisations (ii) Identify the different factors of Integrity and their inter-linkages (iii) Create an objective and reliable tool that can measure the performance of organisations along these above factors (iv) Validate the findings over a period of time to improve upon the robustness of the tool that measures Integrity (v) Create an internal and external ecosystem that promotes working with Integrity where public organisations lead the way. 10.6.2 The Commission has appointed Indian Institute of Management, Ahmadabad as a Consultant for a period of one year to develop the Integrity Index. Based on the survey and extensive consultation with the organisation, the Consultant will: (i) Provide a benchmark of good governance mechanisms needed to combat corruption. (ii) In the preparation of the Index effort will be made to check the existence Vigilance Manual 2017 279 Chapter - X Preventive Vigilance of rules, SOPs and transparency mechanisms designed to deter, prevent or curb corruption and their implementation and enforcement. 10.6.3 The project is designed to cover all the CPSEs and Central Government Ministries / Departments in five years. It is expected that while expansion will take place in the first 2-3 years, the mechanism will stabilise in 2-3 years following that. 10.6.4 In the first year, the Commission has identified 25 CPSEs and Central Government Ministries / Departments to be covered. [Annexure-I] 10.6.5 The organisation in consultation with the consultant will be required to collect data from the internal and external stake holders, conduct workshops and surveys to gather information, evaluate and bench mark the organisations against the Index so developed
It was suggested that Ministries undertake a systematic and thorough review of the laws, rules, procedures and practices for the purpose of listing discretionary powers, levels at which these are exercised, manner in which they are exercised, control over the exercise of such powers and the points at which citizens come into contact with the Departments and why. It was also recommended that a study should be made by Ministries of the extent, possible scope and modes of corruption, remedial measures prescribed and their effectiveness. (d) The Report deals in detail with the major causes of corruption and steps to deal with each. The Committee observed that: (i) Administrative delays must be reduced to the extent possible and firm action should be taken to eliminate causes of delay. (ii) Each Ministry should undertake a review of existing procedures and practices to find out causes of delay, points at which delay occurs and devise steps to minimize the same. (iii) Time limits should be prescribed and these should be strictly adhered to; those responsible for delays should be called to account. (iv) Levels at which files are to be processed and manner of decision making have also been prescribed. The Committee recommended that: (i) Ministries review their regulatory functions and whether the manner of discharge of those functions can be improved. (ii) while recognising that it may not be possible to completely eliminate discretion, it should be possible to devise a system of administration which would reduce the need for personal discretion, to a minimum. (iii) that a serious attempt be made to educate citizens about their rights and responsibilities and make arrangements to enable citizens’ access to the administration without having to go through intermediaries. Other preventive measures listed in the Report include: - (i) recruitment of officers / officials with high integrity, (ii) informal codes of conduct for different categories of Government servants
having agencies where a genuine complainant can seek redressal and protection from harassment, (iv) easy availability of forms required by the public for obtaining licenses, etc., (v) ban on Government servants accepting private employment after retirement among others. (e) Significant developments have taken place since the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee were made. In 2003, statutory status was conferred upon the Central Vigilance Commission and it also became a multi-member body. In 2004, it was made the designated authority to receive whistle blower complaints and to protect the whistle blowers. The institutional framework for addressing corruption has been progressively strengthened with the establishment of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Directorate of Enforcement, the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, State Anti-Corruption agencies and Lokayuktas and the legal framework has also expanded. There are also elaborate conduct rules which aim to promote integrity in public services and other policies and guidelines for transparency in recruitments and promotions.
10.2 THE CONCEPT OF PREVENTIVE VIGILANCE (i) Concept: It is adoption of a package of measures to improve systems and procedures to eliminate / reduce corruption, promote transparency and ease of doing business. (ii) Who is required to implement preventive vigilance measures? Preventive vigilance involves systemic improvements which besides reducing corruption also lead to better operational results. It is a tool of management and good governance and therefore, it is the duty of the management as a whole, and not of the CVO alone. Indeed, it can be said that it is the duty of every employee. 10.2.1 Causes of corruption: Preventive vigilance is aimed at identifying, tackling / addressing the root cause of corruption within the organisation. The common causes of corruption, inter alia, could be:
(a) Excessive regulation & licensing. (b) Complicated rules and regulations. (c) Monopoly over delivery of goods / services. (d) Lack of transparency. (e) Lack of accountability. (f) Too much discretionary power. (g) Poor regulatory framework. (h) Poor grievance redressal mechanism. (i) Very low rate of detection of corruption. (j) Lack of condemnation of corrupt practices by the public. (k) Absence of a formal system of inculcating values, ethics & integrity. (l) Inadequacy of regular / periodic / surprise checks. (m) Rigid bureaucratic framework / processes. (n) Lack of awareness about rights, duties, procedure to complain, rules, laws, etc. 10.3 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CORRUPTION Preventive vigilance is aimed at tackling the areas vulnerable to corruption within the organisation. Although potential areas of corruption are specific to organisations / sectors, there are some broad areas common to all organisations, which need special attention while putting in place a system of preventive vigilance. These relate to: - (a) Procurement: Procurement is a vast area ranging from procurement of store materials & services to execution of infrastructure projects. It is one of the major corruption prone areas in all organisations. (b) Sale of goods and services: The disposal of goods (the reverse of procurement) and services is also a major area of corruption in some organisations. Similarly, allocation of scarce and / or precious natural resources is an area of corruption. (c) Human resource management: Human resource management is common to all organisations and the processes relating to recruitment, promotion, transfer and posting are prone to manipulation and corruption.
Delivery of services to public: Although not common to all Public Sector Organisations, major Government Departments are involved in delivery of services which are a potential area of corruption. (e) Enforcement: The enforcement of Acts, Rules and Regulations is also an area vulnerable to corruption mainly due to lack of awareness among citizens and ineffective grievance redressal mechanism. 10.4 PREVENTIVE VIGILANCE MEASURES Preventive vigilance measures can broadly be categorized as: - (a) Simplification and standardisation of rules: Simplification and standardisation of rules and procedures results in elimination of discretion and arbitrariness, which in turn reduces corruption. Identifying areas involving exercise of discretion which are not governed by guidelines together with a complete review of existing rules and regulations needs to be undertaken to introduce clarity and accountability. Similarly, simplification and standardisation of forms / application also reduces scope for corruption. (b) Leveraging technology: Technology as an enabler for fighting corruption has been effectively demonstrated. E-procurements, E-payments, use of websites for dissemination of information and creating awareness, use of CCTV in places of public dealing, use of GPS enabled devices / RFIDs, use of appropriate analytical tools, computer assisted audit techniques for detecting frauds are examples of how technology strengthens the system of preventive vigilance. (c) Automation: Using IT as an enabler for reducing corruption along with business process re-engineering is recognized as an effective tool of preventive vigilance. Automation reduces interface / interaction between public officials and common public. It also removes monopoly in delivery of services and personal discretion, reducing the opportunities for discretion thus leading to reduction in corruption. Therefore, the organisations should strive to reduce interface of officials with common public / customers by way of automation / online services. However, IT systems are not an end in themselves; they are the means to an end. It
follows therefore that there is a need to develop a system of alerts as also a response mechanism. (d) Business Process Re-engineering (BPR): BPR is very important as it helps the organisations rethink how they do their work and in the process, encourages a full-scale re-creation of processes in order to meet the objectives of the organisation. Existing processes may be re-engineered to even prevent leakage of revenue. (e) Transparency: Transparency removes the information gap between the public and public officials which in turn reduces corruption. The website of the Department / Organisation should contain rules & regulations, contact details of officials and all other information useful for common public / customers. (f) Accountability: There is no fear of punitive action due to lack of accountability. A system with clear accountability and assigned responsibility at each level is necessary not only for smooth functioning but increased transparency, efficiency and for ensuring effective punitive action in case of misconduct. (g) Control & Supervision: Regular and routine inspections, surprise inspections, audit and reviews keep a check on aberrant and corrupt behaviour. A list of points and areas prone to corruption will facilitate the purpose of organising checks and streamlining procedures. A structured interaction between vigilance and internal audit will enable better monitoring and also help identify potential problem areas. (h) Early detection of misconducts: Early detection of misconducts apart from bringing to light the damages to the system, will enable recouping the loss wherever possible and facilitate control of further damage. (i) Time-bound and effective punitive action: Punitive (disciplinary or criminal) action within short period of occurrence of misconduct and finalisation of such cases in a time-bound manner resulting in award of exemplary and adequate (commensurate with gravity of misconduct) punishment deters others from committing such misconduct. Delays and inefficiencies in such proceedings encourages and emboldens others to
take risk of committing misconduct under the belief that nothing would happen to them. (j) Providing necessary infrastructural facilities: Non-provision of adequate infrastructural facilities such as accommodation, conveyance, utilities, etc. also induce corruption. (k) Training & Awareness: Capacity building and sensitization at all levels and across all functional areas is important. Public officials should be made aware of their duties and responsibilities, code of conduct, rules and regulations through regular training and awareness programmes. A list of Dos & Don’ts for employees / officials is a simple yet effective tool. Likewise, familiarization with Standard Operating Procedures relating to different spheres of activity will enhance awareness and reduce procedural violations / inadvertent errors arising out of a lack of awareness. Knowledge sharing initiatives such as publishing / circulating information relating to areas where fraud / misconduct has been detected and sharing information on best practices are other effective awareness generation methods for more effective preventive vigilance. There should also be an effort to create awareness among all stakeholders. (l) Conducive work environment: Conducive work environment for preventive vigilance may include drawing up a list of sensitive posts, rotation policy for sensitive posts, identification of persons of doubtful integrity and keeping them away from sensitive posts / public dealing. It would be necessary also to create an environment that promotes ethical behaviour. Protection to Whistle Blowers must be ensured in order to bring to light cases of corruption. (m) Awareness among public: If public is made aware of their rights, and also of the rules and regulations, then they are able to resist unfair treatment and arbitrary behaviour by public officials. Public should be encouraged to demand the services due to them and to raise their voice when their rights are denied or powers are misused by public officers. Organisations should prominently display information relevant / useful to the common public on their office notice board / website.
Inculcating Moral Values: Inculcating ethical behaviour among public, particularly the younger generation is an important tool of preventive vigilance. Vigilance Awareness Week (VAW), celebrated every year during the last week of October is aimed at creating such awareness. This opportunity should be utilized by all CVOs / Organisations to create awareness among public as well as among its own officials regarding need for imbibing right values. 10.5 INTEGRITY PACT 10.5.1 Integrity Pact (IP) is an important tool of preventive vigilance which is aimed at preventing corruption and ensuring integrity in public procurement. The Central Vigilance Commission is the nodal authority for the implementation of Integrity Pact in India. It addresses not only bribery, but also other corrupt practices such as collusion and bid rigging. IP is a written agreement between the Government / Government Department / Government Company, etc. and all the bidders agreeing to refrain themselves from bribery, collusion, etc. If the written agreement is violated, the pact describes the sanctions that shall apply. These include:- (i) Loss or denial of contract; (ii) Forfeiture of the bid or performance bond; (iii) Liability for damages; (iv) Exclusion from bidding on future contracts(debarment); and (v) Criminal or disciplinary action. 10.5.2 Integrity Pact has a monitoring system which provides for independent oversight. The Central Vigilance Commission nominates Independent External Monitors (IEMs) to monitor implementation of Integrity Pact. Thus, IP in its present form has three players – (i) The Principal or the Company / Department, (ii) The Vendor, and (iii) The Independent External Monitor (IEM). Vigilance Manual 2017 271 Chapter - X Preventive Vigilance 10.5.3(a) In order to ensure transparency, equity and competitiveness in public procurement, the Commission has been recommending adoption of Integrity Pact (IP) and implementation by Government organisations. CVC through its Office Order No. 41/12/07 dated 04.12.2007 and No. 43/12/07 dated 28.12.2007 as well as Circular and No. 24/08/08 dated 05.08.2008 recommended adoption of Integrity Pact to all the organisations and provided basic guidelines for its implementation in respect of major procurements in Government Organisations. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was issued by the Commission vide Office Order No. 10/5/09 dated 18.05.2009. (b) The Commission issued clarifications regarding the appointment, tenure and eligibility criteria of IEMs vide Circular No. 008/CRD/013 dated 11.08.2009 and No. 009/VGL/016 dated 19.04.2010. The review system for IEMs was modified vide Circular No. 008/CRD/013 dated 13.8.2010 and clarification regarding tenure of IEMs was issued by the Commission vide its Circular No. 011/VGL/053 dated 23.07.2012. (c) Department of Expenditure vide OM No. 14 (12)/2008– E-II (A) dated 19.07.2011, issued guidelines to all Ministries / Departments / Organisations including their attached / subordinate offices and autonomous bodies for implementation of IP. Also, vide OM No. 14 (12)/2008 – E- II (A) dated 20.07.2011, the Department of Expenditure requested Department of Public Enterprises for issuing directions to the Central Public Sector Enterprises for use of IP. (d) Further, in view of the increasing procurement activities of Public Sector Banks (PSBs), Insurance Companies (ICs) and Financial Institutions (FIs), the Commission vide Circular No. 02/02/2015 dated 25.02.2015 advised that all PSBs, PSICs and FIs shall also adopt and implement the Integrity Pact. 10.5.4 Adoption of Integrity Pact–Standard Operating Procedure; Independent External Monitor: The Commission appointed a Committee in December, 2015 under the Chairmanship of Shri P. Shankar, the former Central Vigilance Commissioner to review the entire scheme of Integrity Pact. After considering the report of the Committee, the Commission has issued a Vigilance Manual 2017 Chapter - X Preventive Vigilance 272 revised Standard Operating Procedure for adoption of Integrity Pact in Government Departments / Organisations vide Circular No. 02/01/2017 dated 13.01.2017. The salient points are as under: (A) Integrity Pact (1) The Pact essentially envisages an agreement between the prospective vendors / bidders and the buyer, committing the persons / officials of both sides, not to resort to any corrupt practices in any aspect / stage of the contract. Only those vendors / bidders, who commit themselves to such a Pact with the buyer, would be considered competent to participate in the bidding process. In other words, entering into this Pact would be a preliminary qualification. The essential ingredients of the Pact include: (a) Promise on the part of the principal not to seek or accept any benefit, which is not legally available; (b) Principal to treat all bidders with equity and reason; (c) Promise on the part of bidders not to offer any benefit to the employees of the Principal not available legally; (d) Bidders not to enter into any undisclosed agreement or understanding with other bidders with respect to prices, specifications, certifications, subsidiary contracts, etc. (e) Bidders not to pass any information provided by Principal as part of business relationship to others and not to commit any offence under PC Act or IPC; (f) Foreign bidders to disclose the name and address of agents and representatives in India and Indian Bidders to disclose their foreign principals or associates; (g) Bidders to disclose the payments to be made by them to agents/brokers or any other intermediary; (h) Bidders to disclose any transgressions with any other company that may impinge on the anti-corruption principle. (2) Integrity Pact, in respect of a particular contract, would be operative from the date IP is signed by both the parties till the final completion of the Vigilance Manual 2017 273 Chapter - X Preventive Vigilance contract. Any violation of the same would entail disqualification of the bidders and exclusion from future business dealings.
INTEGRITY INDEX 10.6.1
Commission is working on the development of a Comprehensive Integrity Index for organisations. It will be launched shortly. Through the Integrity Index for public organisations the Central Vigilance Commission has decided to adopt a strategy which will ensure transparent, accountable and efficient governance. The Index will be based on bench marking internal processes and controls within an organisation as well as management of relationship and expectation of outside stake holders.The main objectives for which the Integrity Index is to be established are: (i) Define what constitutes Integrity of Public Organisations (ii) Identify the different factors of Integrity and their inter-linkages (iii) Create an objective and reliable tool that can measure the performance of organisations along these above factors (iv) Validate the findings over a period of time to improve upon the robustness of the tool that measures Integrity (v) Create an internal and external ecosystem that promotes working with Integrity where public organisations lead the way. 10.6.2 The Commission has appointed Indian Institute of Management, Ahmadabad as a Consultant for a period of one year to develop the Integrity Index. Based on the survey and extensive consultation with the organisation, the Consultant will: (i) Provide a benchmark of good governance mechanisms needed to combat corruption. (ii) In the preparation of the Index effort will be made to check the existence Vigilance Manual 2017 279 Chapter - X Preventive Vigilance of rules, SOPs and transparency mechanisms designed to deter, prevent or curb corruption and their implementation and enforcement. 10.6.3 The project is designed to cover all the CPSEs and Central Government Ministries / Departments in five years. It is expected that while expansion will take place in the first 2-3 years, the mechanism will stabilise in 2-3 years following that. 10.6.4 In the first year, the Commission has identified 25 CPSEs and Central Government Ministries / Departments to be covered. [Annexure-I] 10.6.5 The organisation in consultation with the consultant will be required to collect data from the internal and external stake holders, conduct workshops and surveys to gather information, evaluate and bench mark the organisations against the Index so developed
Swiss Challenge
9.11 SWISS CHALLENGE
To achieve and maintain the targeted rate of growth, development of
infrastructure is important. Bottleneck in infrastructure development
has been mainly due to non-availability of adequate financial resources,
appropriate technical know-how & administrative mechanism to
undertake big projects. This calls for active participation from private
sector. Swiss Challenge has come up as one of the innovative forms of
public procurement, facilitating participation of private sector.
Under this method, a public procurement entity receives unsolicited
proposal for a public project or service; this proposal is made open by
the procuring entity to other parties to match or exceed.
In today’s perspective, there have been issues involved in Swiss Challenge
method and some of them are as follows:-
(a) Consideration of unsolicited offer from an original private proposer, if it
has not been so invited;
(b) having adequate appreciation of the original proposal vis-Ã -visactual
requirements / public needs of the project;
(c) the very scheme of receiving unsolicited proposal from one private agency
may result in information asymmetries in the procurement process and
absence of equal opportunities to all other parties making matching/
better proposals, leading, in turn, to lack of transparency, fair and equal
treatment of potential proposers in the procurement process;
(d) setting a reasonable time limit for completion of efficient bidding
phase;
(e) dealing with counter proposals from other parties, especially so when
they offer specifications very much different from those included in the
original proposal;
(f) looking into reasonableness of the proposals ensuring that all the risks
Vigilance Manual 2017
Chapter - IX Chief Technical Examiners’ Organisation
258
involved are duly taken care of and no undue benefit is extended to any
of the proposers, at the cost of others;
(g) suitable compensation to the original proposer, if any, for his original
concept / intellectual property.
Keeping in view all the issues, as listed above, a strong legal and regulatory
framework to award projects under Swiss Challenge method needs to be
in place, before this method of procurement is adopted.
Evolution of CBI - useful for Civil Mains Exam ( Ethics Paper)
EVOLUTION: Special Police Establishment [SPE] was set up in 1941 to
investigate bribery and corruption in transactions of the War and Supply
Department of India during World War II with its Headquarters in Lahore.
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was brought into force in 1946
which enlarged its scope to cover all Departments of the Government
of India. Its jurisdiction extended to the Union Territories, and could be
further extended to the States with the consent of the State Governments
involved. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was set up through a Home
Ministry Resolution No. 4/31/61-T dated 1.4.1963 & SPE became one of
the constituents of CBI. The Central Government has been empowered
under Section 5 to extend to any area (including Railway area) in a State
not being a Union Territory, the powers and jurisdiction of members of the
DSPE for the investigation of any offence or classes of offences specified
in a notification under section 3 of the DSPE Act subject to the consent
of the Government of the concerned State, under section 6 of the Act.
6.2 JURISDICTION OF CBI vis-Ã -vis STATE POLICE: The Special Police
Establishment of CBI (Ant-Corruption Division) enjoys with the respective
State Police Force concurrent powers of investigation and prosecution
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, to avoid duplication
of effort, an administrative arrangement has been arrived at with the State
Governments according to which:
(a) Cases, which substantially and essentially concern Central Government
employees or the affairs of the Central Government, even though involving
State Government employees, are to be investigated by the SPE. The State Police is, however, kept informed of such cases and will render necessary
assistance to the SPE during investigation;
(b) Cases, which substantially and essentially involve State Government
employees or relate to the affairs of a State Government, even though
involving certain Central Government employees, are investigated by the
State Police. The SPE is informed of such cases and it extends assistance to
the State Police during investigation, if necessary. When the investigation
made by the State Police authorities in such cases involves a Central
Government employee, the requests for sanction for prosecution of the
competent authority of the Central Government will be routed through
the SPE. (Refer to Chapter 17 of CBI Crime Manual)
6.3 SUPERINTENDENCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF CBI
(i) The genesis of superintendence of CBI has been laid down in the landmark
decision of the Supreme Court delivered on 18th December, 1997 in Vineet
Narain v/s UOI case. In this judgement, directions were issued that the
CVC shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of the CBI. For
giving effect to this direction, CVC Act, 2003 was enacted. Section 4 of
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was also amended w.e.f.
01.09.2003, which reads as follows:
“4. Superintendence and administration of Special Police Establishment.
(1) The superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so far
as it relates to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), shall vest in
the Commission
Protection to Whistle Blowers - useful for Civil Services Main Exam (Ethics Paper)
PROTECTION TO WHISTLEBLOWERS
4.3.1
According to the PIDPI Resolution, following provisions have been made for protection of Whistle Blowers: - (a) Clause 6 - If any person is aggrieved by any action on the ground that he is being victimized due to the fact that he had filed a complaint or disclosure, he may file an application before the designated agency (CVC) seeking redress in the matter, who shall take such action as deemed fit. The designated agency may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority as the case may be. (b) Clause 7 - Either on the application of the complainant, or on the basis of the information gathered, if the designated agency is of the opinion that either the complainant or the witnesses need protection, the designated agency shall issue appropriate directions to the concerned Government authorities. (c) Clause 11 – In the event of the identity of the informant being disclosed in spite of the designated agency’s directions to the contrary, the designated agency is authorised to initiate appropriate action as per extant regulations against the person or agency making such disclosure. 4.3.2 The Commission, after receipt of representation(s) from Whistle Blowers about threat to their life, takes up the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Nodal Agency, to undertake the responsibility of providing security cover to the genuine Whistle Blowers. On the advice of the Ministry of Home Affairs, State Governments / UTs have appointed Nodal Officers and details of such officers nominated by State Governments are furnished to the Commission from time to time by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Chapter - IV PIDPI Complaints Vigilance Manual 2017 87 4.3.3 As regards protection against victimisation or harassment within the Department, the Commission forwards such complaints of Whistle Blowers to the CVO of the concerned organisation for appropriate action.
WHISTLE BLOWERS ACT
The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 (originally introduced as PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF PERSONS MAKING THE DISCLOSURE BILL 2010) has been notified on 12.05.2014. However, the provisions of the Act have not come into force as some amendments to the Act were proposed and a bill to this effect is pending before the Parliament.
According to the PIDPI Resolution, following provisions have been made for protection of Whistle Blowers: - (a) Clause 6 - If any person is aggrieved by any action on the ground that he is being victimized due to the fact that he had filed a complaint or disclosure, he may file an application before the designated agency (CVC) seeking redress in the matter, who shall take such action as deemed fit. The designated agency may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority as the case may be. (b) Clause 7 - Either on the application of the complainant, or on the basis of the information gathered, if the designated agency is of the opinion that either the complainant or the witnesses need protection, the designated agency shall issue appropriate directions to the concerned Government authorities. (c) Clause 11 – In the event of the identity of the informant being disclosed in spite of the designated agency’s directions to the contrary, the designated agency is authorised to initiate appropriate action as per extant regulations against the person or agency making such disclosure. 4.3.2 The Commission, after receipt of representation(s) from Whistle Blowers about threat to their life, takes up the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Nodal Agency, to undertake the responsibility of providing security cover to the genuine Whistle Blowers. On the advice of the Ministry of Home Affairs, State Governments / UTs have appointed Nodal Officers and details of such officers nominated by State Governments are furnished to the Commission from time to time by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Chapter - IV PIDPI Complaints Vigilance Manual 2017 87 4.3.3 As regards protection against victimisation or harassment within the Department, the Commission forwards such complaints of Whistle Blowers to the CVO of the concerned organisation for appropriate action.
WHISTLE BLOWERS ACT
The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 (originally introduced as PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF PERSONS MAKING THE DISCLOSURE BILL 2010) has been notified on 12.05.2014. However, the provisions of the Act have not come into force as some amendments to the Act were proposed and a bill to this effect is pending before the Parliament.
Vigilance Manual of CVC
The Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER), MoS PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, Dr Jitendra Singh released the 7th edition of the Vigilance Manual of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) here today.
Speaking on the occasion, Dr Jitendra Singh said that continuous efforts are required to update the mechanisms, as the society and the means always keep on changing. He said that the ultimate objective of any society should be to achieve the level of incorruptibility. This is important keeping in view the fact that we are a young and evolving democracy, he added. The Minister further said that the role of society is equally important in curbing corruption, and this task cannot alone be left to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
Highlighting the steps taken by the Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, he said that the Government has been following a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ towards corruption. He said that the Government has always focused on checking corruption, and at the same time to ensure an environment to every officer to perform without feeling intimidated by anyone. The bureaucracy cannot succeed without providing good governance tools, he added. He said that this environment is important to ensure the policy of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ and fulfill the aim of citizen-centricity. Dr Jitendra Singh also said that the future of India will depend on the youth who are going to be the change-makers in the society.
Dr Jitendra Singh said that the concept of ‘preventive vigilance’ is the step in right direction. He emphasized that awareness needs to be created in the society on a regular basis for various sections of society. He also complemented the Commission for putting the manual in the public domain. The Minister emphasized that timeframe is very important in handling the cases related to corruption and the same is being streamlined in the amendments to be made in the Prevention of Corruption Act. Dr Jitendra Singh said that the steps such as online RTI, online Vigilance manual will bring in transparency and good governance in the system.
The Central Vigilance Commissioner Shri KV Chowdary said that this edition was released keeping in view the fact that guidance is required for the people working in this area with the changing times and laws. He said that the first edition was released in the year 1968 after the formation of the Commission in 1964 and the 6th edition was released in the year 2005 after the Commission became a statutory body in 2003. He said that a lot of changes including automation have happened in the last twelve years, so the new edition of the manual was required. He said that the major iniitative and change is to put the manual in the public domain. The online version is the dynamic one and will be reviewed online. Any changes including changes in the guidelines and court judgments will be updated on a continuous basis, the CVC said. He said that it will act as a reference book for the vigilance practitioners and bring in transparency. He also said that a new chapter on Preventive Vigilance and separate chapters on Banking and Insurance services have been added in the Manual. Shri KV Chowdary said that the Commission is developing an e-learning module for vigilance officers. The Commission is also shifting to e-office, he added.
The edition released today is the 7th edition of the Vigilance Manual. The 1st edition was released in 1968, 2ndedition of the Manual was released in 1971, 3rd edition in 1974, 4th edition in 1982, 5th edition in 1991. The last edition of the Vigilance Manual was released in the year 2005 and a need was felt to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing Vigilance Manual. The present edition of the Vigilance Manual is a public document accessible through CVC’s website www.cvc.nic.in. The online version has been released along with the printed version for the first time. The 2017 edition of the Vigilance Manual incorporates 567 Paras divided into 11 Chapters with appropriate citations. Eleven chapters include: Vigilance Administration, Appointment, Role, Functions & Responsibilities of Chief Vigilance Officers, Complaints, PIDPI complaint, Preliminary Enquiry, CBI, Disciplinary Proceeding and Suspension, Vigilance Management in PSB & PSIC, CTEO, Preventive Vigilance and some relevant issues.
It has been made a complete document by hyperlinking orders/circulars cited in the Manual (in the online version). This Manual will be a reference for almost all aspects of vigilance administration. Several new topics of vigilance have been included in the present edition. The manual includes numerous guidelines issued by the Chief Technical Examiners’ Organisation of the Central Vigilance Commission. Issues of relevance such as the Standard Operating Procedure in Legal Cases, Procedure for Obtaining and Grant of Vigilance Clearance, Right to Information Act, 2005, International Cooperation against Corruption, Public Participation in Promoting Integrity and Eradicating Corruption and Forensic Science as a Tool for Enquiry/Investigation, etc. have also been included. A comprehensive chapter on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has also been introduced. The previous edition briefly dealt with ‘facilities and cooperation to be extended with CBI during investigation’. In this edition, a detailed chapter on all aspects of Disciplinary Proceedings and Suspension has also been included.
The Central Vigilance Commission will constantly update it based on the suggestions received from all stakeholders. Previous Modifications/amendments were carried out through Circulars, Guidelines, Instructions etc. issued by the Central Vigilance Commission / DoPT / MHA etc. These changes have been incorporated in the Manual so as to make it comprehensive and user friendly.
Secretary, DoPT Shri Ajay Mittal, Director CBI Shri Alok Kumar Verma and senior officers of the PMO, CVC, CBI and other Ministries were also present on the occasion.
Tuesday, 5 September 2017
Rohingya Crisis Myanmar
The Rohingya crisis
The visit is taking place amidst some of the worst violence involving Rohingya militants and the Myanmar security forces ever resulting in a full-fledged international crisis triggered by large-scale, coordinated attacks by Rohingya militants under a recently formed Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA, now designated as ‘terrorists’) against government and security outposts in northern Rakhine state on August 25-26.
The attacks and clearance operations against it have resulted in some 400 (and mounting) deaths, mostly Rohingya; widespread arson and burning of villages allegedly by both sides; displacement of thousands within Rakhine state and across the Naf river to Bangladesh; and severe disruption in food and humanitarian supplies. The Modi government has unequivocally condemned the “terrorist” attacks at a time when the security forces and Ms. Suu Kyi herself face heightened international criticism on the handling of the issue. This is likely to resonate in Mr. Modi’s favour in Myanmar.
The visit is also taking place against the backdrop of uncertainties in the future India-China relationship caused by the now defused Doklam stand-off and the BRICS summit. Sensitive to its location between the two Asians giants, Myanmar is keen to leverage the growth potential of good relations with Asia’s two fastest growing economies. But it is also wary of its economic dependence on China, characterised by a largely extractive relationship focused on natural resources and access to the Bay of Bengal where it already has an oil and gas terminal, concession to build a Special Economic Zone and seeks a possibly controlling stake in a natural deep sea harbour at Kyaukpyu that could form part of its ambitious BRI. The shadow of China is thus likely to loom large over the visit. Myanmar would welcome closer economic ties with India to balance and offset its domineering ties with China. Characterisations of a ‘Great Game East’ between India and China are, however, greatly overstated.
Focus on basics
Beyond these topical issues, and the issue of Indian insurgent groups in Myanmar, which remain a matter of concern, the optics of Mr. Modi’s much anticipated visit will most likely be taken up by the fundamentals of the bilateral relationship: the substantive development partnership, trade issues, and revival of cultural and people-to-people ties. Defence relations too have been growing steadily, especially between the two armies and navies. Security related talks have been taking place at the National Security Adviser (NSA) level.
A number of bilateral agreements in the areas of capacity building, health, culture, and development, and one on maritime security are on the anvil, building on India’s nearly $2 billion development partnership with Myanmar so far. These cover large directly funded and executed connectivity infrastructure projects like the Trilateral Highway, the Kaladan Multi-modal Transport and Transit Project; high value capacity and human development projects like the Myanmar Institute of Information Technology in Mandalay; more modest ones in industry, IT, health, entrepreneurship and language training; small border area development projects in Chin and Naga areas of Myanmar; and soft lines of credit for other infrastructure projects amounting to nearly $750 million. Much of this still remains to be utilised.
Though this may not be adequately realised even in Myanmar, few countries are undertaking such large infrastructure and human development projects out of government funds as India is. When they are all completed and fully operational by about 2020, they will amount to a substantial mass and base for an expanded relationship.
Lamentably, the same cannot be said of commercial trade and investments. Both stand on narrow bases, primary agricultural and forest products from Myanmar in the case of trade, and oil and gas in case of investments, underlining a strong need to expand, diversify and upgrade commercial ties in ways that also contribute to Myanmar’s development needs and meet India’s $3 billion trade target set in 2012.
To an extent not often realised, trade has been the keystone of our post-Independence relationship that survived both the nationalisation of the 1960s by the military government of Ne Win and the Western economic sanctions since the crackdown on democratic aspirations starting from the 1980s. Critical to this trade are Indian imports of beans and pulses that play a vital part in our food security and Myanmar’s economy. Standing at around a million tonnes and $1 billion in value, over 90% of which is exported to India, it is vital to Myanmar’s farmers and foreign exchange earnings, greater even in the value of its exports of rice to China that are prone to periodic restrictions, tough inspections and crackdowns on informal trade at the Myanmar-China border. Past attempts to open a limited market for Myanmar rice in India as an alternative to China, have floundered on vested public distribution interests in India and should be re-opened.
Unfortunately, the recent decision to impose quantitative restrictions on the trade in pulses does exactly the opposite, notwithstanding recent relaxations on orders already paid for. In part, this is because of our own concerns vis-Ã -vis speculative global trade in pulses that has resulted in incentives to increase and protect domestic production in India and induce Myanmar to move towards a government-channelised trade to stabilise prices and in part on account of resistance to such a move in Myanmar.
Older ties
Underlining our strong cultural, people-to-people and diaspora relationship, Mr. Modi will also visit Bagan where the Archaeological Survey of India is in the final stages of a face-lift to the venerated Ananda Temple and where the Cabinet has approved Indian assistance for the restoration of pagodas damaged by the powerful 2016 earthquake; and Yangon, where he will address the Indian-origin and Indian community and visit places religious, cultural and historical importance.
In his official meetings with President Htin Kyaw and State Counsellor Suu Kyi in Nay Pyi Taw, Mr. Modi is likely to forge a bold strategic vision for bilateral relations, taking advantage of the consensus cutting across political parties and civil and military pillars of Myanmar’s polity towards stronger ties with India and project India’s economic and strategic footprint in the region between the Bay of Bengal to the South China Sea.
Key elements of this vision could be greater attention to emerging political forces, ethnic states and the peace process as part of our democratic political outreach; converting our investments in the Trilateral Highway and the Kaladan to fuller trade and investment corridors and use Indian investment in the Greater Mekong Sub-region as an arm of our foreign policy with a focus on agriculture, agro-industries and light industry; a broader development partnership reaching to the grassroots with the help of civil society; specific prongs in our ‘Act East’ policy through the Northeast and Bodh Gaya as a pilgrimage centre; and a new political approach to the IIG issue (Indian Insurgent Groups) beyond an intelligence-based approaches. These could perhaps find expression in a joint document sooner or later.
The objective should be to restore the balance in Myanmar’s relations between East and South Asia that has been lost with the eastward tilt in Myanmar’s external relations over 50 years of insular military rule during which the two countries have forgotten the habit of thinking of themselves psychologically as immediate neighbours.
Who are first settlers
When did our species, Homo sapiens, first set foot in India? There are two competing versions of the answer: let’s call them the ‘early version’ and the ‘late version’. The ‘early version’ says they arrived 74,000 to 120,000 years ago from Africa through the Arabian peninsula with Middle Stone Age tools such as scrapers and points that helped them hunt their prey, gather food, or make clothes. The ‘late version’ says they arrived much later, around 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, with upgraded technology such as microlithic (tiny stone) tools that might have been used to give sharp tips to arrows and spears.
A geological event separates the two versions: the supervolcanic eruption at Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia, about 74,000 years ago, dumped tonnes of ash all over South-east Asia and South Asia, causing much stress to all life in the region. The ‘early version’ says migrants reached India before Toba; the ‘late version’ says the opposite.
Two new studies
Until two months ago it looked like the late version had all the momentum. But two new studies, published in July and August, may have changed that. The first study, led by Professor Chris Clarkson of the University of Queensland, established that modern humans were in Australia by between 59,300 and 70,700 years ago, or, if you take the midpoint, 65,000 years ago. That is about 15,000 years earlier than previous estimates. Prof. Clarkson and his colleagues used the latest techniques to date things left behind by humans at the Madjedbebe caves in Australia’s Northern Territory: mortars and pestles, ground-edgeaxes, and painting material.
The second study, led by archaeologist Dr. Kira Westaway of the Macquarie University, palaeontologist Dr. Julien Louys of the Australian National University, and others had equally remarkable results. They reinvestigated two teeth that had been found in the Lida Ajer caves in Indonesia’s Sumatra island more than a century ago, but whose dating and provenance were disputed. Using the latest multidisciplinary techniques, they have confirmed that the teeth belonged to modern humans who lived 63,000-73,000 years ago, thus pushing back the dates for modern human occupation of South-east Asia by about 20,000 years.
The Sumatra and the Madjedbebe findings point in the same direction, says Dr. Louys: that Out of Africa (OOA) migrants made it into South-east Asia before 60,000 years ago. In fact, he says, they could have been in the region for much longer because “it is incredibly likely we’re not sampling the very first humans in Sumatra and Australia.”
But if people were already in Australia and South-east Asia by 65,000 years ago, then they would have had to have left Africa and reached India much earlier (India having been a key corridor for the OOA migration). And that would put the ‘late version’ in jeopardy. Professor Ravi Korisettar of the Karnatak University, a well-known archaeologist who has worked extensively on early modern human migrations in South Asia, concurs. “These findings support our argument for an earlier migration,” he says.
Why should we care?
But wait a minute, why should anyone care? How does it matter when a group of hunter-gatherers first walked into India? The simple answer is that human history in the subcontinent begins with them. But there’s also another reason. The first settlers of India are our direct ancestors: about 50% to 60% of Indian genetic ancestry today comes from the first settlers, with the rest contributed by later migrants from West Asia, East Asia, and Central Asia. So, the deeply held belief that only tribals (about 8.6% of the population) carry the ancestry of the original settlers couldn’t be more wrong. The first settlers of India are, indeed, the bedrock of our population and civilisation. Without getting their story right, we cannot get the rest of our history right.
Jwalapuram and the early version
So, to get back to our story, there’s a reason for Prof. Korisettar to feel vindicated. He was instrumental in discovering the Jwalapuram site in Andhra Pradesh, which posed the first big challenge to the ‘late version’. Jwalapuram lies in the Jurreru river valley and its significance is in the fact that the river basin holds layers of volcanic ash left behind by the Toba eruption. The archaeologists who excavated Jwalapuram more than a decade ago, including Prof. Korisettar and Prof. Michael Petraglia, then of Cambridge University, found something remarkable at the bottommost layer: Middle Stone Age tools dated to around 77,000 years ago and were made by what they believe were modern humans. Those findings created a stir because they frontally challenged the ‘late version’. Prof. Korisettar and Prof. Petraglia, in fact, went on to argue that modern humans could have been in India as early as 100,000-120,000 years ago. “Ever since our paper was published in Science magazine in July 2007, we have been suggesting pre-Toba expansion,” says Prof. Korisettar.
The Jwalapuram findings did not go uncontested, though. Middle Stone Age tools were made by both modern humans and archaic hominins such as Homo erectus and are, therefore, difficult to assign to one or the other. And India has had archaic hominins at least from about 1.5 million years ago. But Prof. Korisettar argues that the Jwalapuram artefacts are remarkably similar to those made by Middle Stone Age modern humans in Africa. That argument now finds strong support from Dr. Louys who says “it makes sense” to think modern humans were in Asia before the Toba eruption.
The late version
The problem is that this suggestion bumps up against genetics. All humans belong to haplogroups or lineages (Y-DNA haplogroups for males, and mitrochondrial or mtDNA haplogroups for females), and by studying current populations using genetic markers and mutation rates, geneticists can create global family trees and estimate the age at which two haplogroups shared a common ancestor. These techniques have improved by leaps and bounds, so it’s no surprise that there’s now near-consensus about the history of human migrations. It goes something like this: Homo sapiens originated in Africa over 200,000 years ago, started range expansions into the Levant and West Asia between 120,000-100,000 years ago, and started on a colonising journey of the world around 70,000 years ago, reaching South Asia by 60,000 years, Australia by 50,000 years, and Europe by 45,000 years ago.
All non-African populations in the world, therefore, are descendants of a single, small group of migrating Africans (perhaps numbering no more than a thousand). Because of this bottleneck, the entire non-African world population belongs to just three mtDNA super-haplogroups M, N, and R (and C, D, and F in the case of non-African Y-DNA). The common ancestor of M, N, and R is a parent haplogroup called L3, which still has many lineages in Africa. Given this, it is reasonable to conclude that OOA migrations could not have happened earlier than the emergence of L3. And genetic studies say the earliest possible date for the emergence of L3 is 70,000 years ago. In other words, there is no way that an OOA migration could have happened before the Toba eruption of 74,000 years ago!
Those who argue this also put forward other reasons why the ‘early version’ cannot hold. One of them is that genetic records show that the first migrants had spread across South Asia, South-east Asia, and Australia within a brief period of time before too many mutations could accumulate. And that means it must have been quite a sprint, in historical terms. The only way this could have been accomplished is if they took a coastal route from West Asia to India to South-east Asia and then, finally, Australia. A coastal route meant two things: one, the beach-hopping migrants could use the same skill sets to survive on marine resources such as fish and crustaceans all along their journey. Two, their march got an unintended directionality, taking them inexorably towards Australia.
What lends support to this chronology is that at least from about 35,000 years ago, there is incontrovertible evidence of modern humans in South Asia, while evidence for earlier presence is circumstantial. The earliest modern human fossil in the region is from the Sri Lankan cave of Fa Hien, dated to 33,000-30,000 years ago. (Sri Lanka was then linked to the Indian landmass, as sea levels were lower). In India too, there is abundant evidence of microlithic tools from around the same time.
Squaring the circle
There is an attractive parsimoniousness to the ‘late version’ and until now there hasn’t been abundant, securely dated evidence against it. Moreover, every recent genetic study has further confirmed the late version, the latest being “A genetic history of aboriginal Australia”, the lead author of which is Dr. Michael Westaway of Griffith University. “Our study added a lot more detail to the understanding of early migrations,” says Dr. Westaway. Co-author Dr. Sankar Subramanian acknowledges the difference between the findings of their study and that of the Madjedbebe study. “The age of the common ancestor estimated in our study is younger, about 40,000 years (as against 65,000 years of the Madjedbebe study),” he says, adding that the difference could be either because some of the early lineages have gone extinct and therefore do not show up in the genetic studies, or simply because the genetic study did not include samples from the Northern Territory, the area where Madjedbebe caves are located.
So, how does one square this circle? The ‘late version’ cites genetics to say that OOA could not have happened before 70,000 years ago. But archaeological evidence says humans were already in Sumatra by around then. There are two ways of looking at this. The first is that the new findings do not really overturn the ‘late version’, but only stretch it to the maximum. The lower end of the Madjedbebe study puts the age of the artefacts at 59,300 years; that of the Sumatra study puts it at 63,000 years. Theoretically, both could fall within the extreme range of possibilities, with OOA migrants reaching Australia by 59,000 years ago, after having left Africa by 70,000 years ago. Another possibility is that the Madjedbebe and Sumatra people went extinct long ago, leaving behind artefacts and a couple of teeth, but without leaving a mark in the genetic pool as it exists today.
The new studies may have given new wind to the early version of OOA, but it will take new fossil finds with older dates for a new consensus to emerge.
Civil Servants
The Vice President of India, Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu has said that Civil Servants should be Empathetic, Efficient, Impartial and Incorruptible and these are the guiding principles that form the bedrock of the higher civil services. He was addressing the gathering after inaugurating the 92nd Foundation Course for AIS & CCS Officers at Dr. Marri Chenna Reddy Human Resource Development Institute of Telangana (MCRHRDIT), in Hyderabad today. The Deputy Chief Minister of Telangana, Shri Mohammad Mahmood Ali, the Director General, MCRHRDIT, Shri B.P. Acharya and other dignitaries were present on the occasion.
The Vice President said that the credit for establishing India's all India civil services goes to the first Home Minister of India and the iron man Sardar Patel. He further said that the civil servants are binding force and can bridge many divides India faces. We need to use every opportunity to improve quality of life of every Indian, especially those under-served, he added.
The Vice President said that civil servants must be impartial with a broad vision for National integration and inclusive development. Serving all without bias by adopting 'Antyodaya' approach as espoused by Gandhiji, Dr. Ambedkar and Deen Dayal Upadhyay must be the motto, he added.
The Vice President said that the country expects high levels of performance and integrity from higher civil services and the youth look up to civil servants as role models. He further said that be above board to root out corruption and become the catalyst of a New India. India is a multi-religious, multi-lingual pluralistic society, mother-tongue must be given its due importance, while working with the people, he advised.
Following is the text of Vice President’s address:
“Dear Probationers,
I am glad to speak with all of you today at the inaugural session of the Foundation course. This course is the foundation for your career and the stepping stone for your future achievements.
I congratulate each of you for choosing this career path that will take you through some of the most interesting and challenging opportunities to serve our country. The All India Services have their origin in the conception of ‘Civil servant’used in the British East India Company’s official records in 1765 and it was Governor General Cornwallis who introduced Covenant Civil services (Higher Civil Services) and the Un-Covenanted Civil services (Lower Civil Services).
Originally opened to only the British, Indians were allowed to compete for these services after 1870 when the Indian Civil Services Act of 1870 was passed. After India became independent, the founding fathers debated the need to have All India Services and decided that it was necessary to have a civil service that will foster national integration.
The credit for establishing the All India civil services in independent India goes to Sri Sardar Patel, the first Home Minister of the country and the great architectof political integration of the entire nation.
In post-Independent India, the civil services had to be transformed. From serving foreign masters, the administrators were expected to serve the people in a democratic framework of governance based on the Constitutional provisions.
This required a shift in emphasis from merely administering or carrying out the tasks efficiently to whole heartedly serving the country. As Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel put it so beautifully in his stirring address to civil service probationers at Metcalf House in New Delhi on 21 April 1947:
“The service will now be free to or will have to adopt its true role of national service without being trammelled by traditions and habits of the past;
Officers must be guided by a real spirit of service in their day-to-day administration, for in no other manner can they fit in the scheme of things
Your predecessors were brought up in the traditions in which they felt out of touch and kept themselves aloof from the common run of the people. It will be your bounden duty to treat the common men in India as your own or to put it correctly, to feel yourself to be one of them.”
You are all heirs to the legacy left behind by a number of civil servants who had internalized this grand vision of the founding fathers of our nation and the visionary leaders like Sardar Patel.
You are about to shape your careers on this strong foundation built over the last seventy years. There have been many changes in the world and the country and consequently you will be working in a different environment as compared to your predecessors.
There are, however, some guiding principles that form the bedrock of the higher civil services in the country. These essential well springs must not be allowed to dry up. I shall outline four salient aspects you may like to keep in view: ‘empathy’, ‘efficiency’, ‘impartiality’ and ‘Incorruptibility’.
The first is ‘empathy’. Mahatma Gandhi’s advice to anyone who was in doubt if an action was good or not was to put oneself in the situation of the poorest of the poor in the country and see how a particular policy and programme will impact him or her.
This is a timeless talisman he gave us which can be a useful thinking tool as you weigh the pros and cons of taking a decision in your career. If the emphasis is on service to the country, the essential quality we may have to imbibe is to better understand whom we are serving- their needs, aspirations and their living conditions.
The second principle is ‘efficiency’. As administrators occupying the highest positions of power and authority, you will have an onerous responsibility to translate policies into programmes, to implement schemes on ground. You will be providing that most important link between legislation and implementation.
A policy is only as good as its implementation. Very often in our country we keep reflecting on poor implementation of good policies. The tardy, inefficient execution of projects and programmes hurts the common people whom we are trying to serve.
The cost and time overruns retard the nation’s developmental progress. We must therefore be constantly mindful of the fact that the country and the people expect the top bureaucracy to deliver at a high level of proficiency and efficiency.
You need to be agile in your thoughts and actions. You should be able to access the latest information and knowledge and use them for improving service delivery. There are many civil servants who have made remarkable innovations and transformed sleepy institutions into vibrant hubs of efficient activities.
As the work and living environments change, we have to make use of every opportunity to refine our working methods to achieve the ultimate objective of improving the quality of life of every Indian, especially those who have not been adequately served. Innovation is the key.
Honest reviews and reflection on what we have achieved and what we have not should be an integral part of our functioning. We must look at the strengths our society offers and how we can build partnerships with civil society and the private sector so that the pace of development can be accelerated and the quality of the services is significantly enhanced.
The Prime Minister’s call to ‘Reform, perform and transform’ could inspire you to scale new heights in efficiency and transformational leadership.
The third and the fourth principles- impartiality and incorruptibility are contained in Sardar Patel’s exhortation:
“Above all I would advise you to maintain to the utmost the impartiality and incorruptibility of administration.”
The civil service was created to provide an impartial inclusive management culture in the country’s governance. This was absolutely necessary in the multi-lingual, multi-religious, pluralistic society that India is.
The civil services were the binding force that would be able to bridge the many ‘divides’ that India has. Being impartial and having a broad vision of national integration and inclusive development, the founding fathers thought of the higher civil services as the steel frame of the country.
The allegiance is to an inclusive national development as mandated by the Constitution and in accordance with the policies laid down by the legislatures and the parameters of law and justice elaborated the judiciary.
The administration must be passionate about service and be dispassionate about the profile of the people we are serving. Serving all citizens equally without any bias or prejudice with a special focus on those who have been left out of the development and growth process should be the direction, the ‘antyodaya’ approach, leaving no one behind, as espoused by Gandhiji, Dr Ambedkar and Deen Dayal Upadhyay, is what you all should adopt.
The last principle I would like to underscore is the ‘incorruptibility’. As a member of the higher civil services, you have an onerous responsibility not only to be empathetic and efficient but have an impeccable integrity. The words of Sri Sardar Patel again ring so true even 70 years after he made those remarks. He had said: “Unhappily India today cannot boast of an incorruptible service, but I hope that you who are now starting, as it were, a new generation of Civil Servants, will not be misled by black sheep in the fold, but would render your service without fear or favour and without, any expectation of extraneous rewards. If you serve in the true spirit of service I am sure you will have your best reward.”
The country expects high levels of performance but also high levels of integrity and rectitude from the higher civil services. The country especially the youth look upon civil servants as role models of good behaviour.
The word ‘civil’ is part of the nomenclature of the services and the public at large expects the civil servants to behave in a dignified manner and have the ability to patiently listen and take a balanced view. You must eschew arrogance and authoritarianism and be able to approach even the most intractable issues and irritants with a calm demeanour.
Please remember that a corrupt system erodes the vitality of a robust country. If you have to root out corruption and become the catalyst of a new India that we are all aspiring for, you must not only be above board but also appear to be above board.
You should avoid all actions that will sully the image of the country and give an appearance to the common man and woman that the avowed ‘steel frame’ has become even slightly bent or rusted.
The ‘Iron man’ of India has conceived of the steel frame. I would urge you all to add lustre to this frame by your energetic positive contributions.
Make it a stainless steel frame, unsullied, shining and providing the support and glow for illuminating the lives of millions of Indian who are looking for ways to better their lives.
I wish you all the very best in your careers. I am sure you will usher in a more prosperous, harmonious, inclusive, corruption-free India.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)