Telling apart graft and grit in decision-making

CVC is correct in stating that there might not be any correlation or causation between corruption and loss (or notional loss)

In a country where a senior bureaucrat’s estimate of notional loss helped take down a government, determining what constitutes loss and how investigators assign responsibility in such cases is important indeed. This week, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) revised its master circular and said that financial and non-financial losses caused to a government department need not necessarily be considered the result of corruption or malfeasance.

Not every decision might result in the desired outcome, even without any foul play or malfeasance (HT Archive)

This is a sensible distinction. The apex vigilance body – which oversees and supervises the vigilance aspect of organisations owned or controlled by the central government, including state-owned companies – is correct in stating that there might not be any correlation or causation between corruption and loss (or notional loss). The business of governing a complex and diverse country such as India will always require some degree of adventurous decision-making, some courage, some out-of-the-box thinking, and some leaps of faith. It is important to ensure that such decisions are not plagued by conflicts of interest, political or economic considerations or harm to national interest or security. But not every decision might result in the desired outcome, even without any foul play or malfeasance. If anything, our bureaucracy has been guilty of favouring the status quo over the dynamic, the safe over the risky. As long as the creative decision-making is sanctioned, reasonable and informed, there is no reason it should be penalised as corruption.

No modern nation-State can tolerate corruption because it gnaws at the foundation of the country and hollows out public faith in institutions. Over the past seven decades, corruption has become endemic in many public bodies and bureaucracy due to deep politicisation, entrenched power structures, nepotism and lax oversight. While the CVC’s nuanced position is welcome, it must not become an excuse for preferential treatment or a relaxed view on corruption.