The Supreme Court judgement of December 18 will go a long way in giving the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) the autonomy and protection from political pressure they so need. Particularly welcome is the revocation of the directive that requires the CBI and the ED to seek the government's permission before investigating charges against any officer above the rank of joint secretary. It will now be less easy for those in the upper echelons of power to protect each other from prosecution. Norms have also been laid down as to the appointment and transfer of directors of the CBI and the ed. Hitherto, these have invariably been governed by the compulsions of the ruling party or coalition at the Centre -- not merit.

While the judgement deserves praise, it is disconcerting that the CBI has been placed under the Central Vigilance Commission. This amounts to allowing the IAS, and thereby the executive, backdoor entry into India's premier police agency. Also, it must be noted that the CBI and the ED have not been given any exceptional powers. They are merely being allowed a little more space to get on with their job. That even this freedom was not possible -- or permissible -- before the judgement speaks volumes about the agencies' politicisation. In recent years, the CBI's instinct has been to cringe before political and bureaucratic authority. One judgement cannot provide instant remedy for this. India will have to be patient before the CBI and the ED adjust to their new-found liberty and emerge as credible watchdogs of democracy. Having said that, the country cannot be expected to wait forever before the spate of political scandals -- covering everything from Bofors to telecom-equipment purchases -- is suitably inquired into and the guilty punished. For a start, the CBI and the ED could strive to improve their abysmal conviction record. It would be the best way to establish their credentials.

Men Who Fooled India
Cricket selectors could yet make their best choice: the exit door, for themselves.

After the manner in which the team for the upcoming one-day internationals against Sri Lanka was chosen, India cannot be expected to repose further confidence in its cricket selectors. True, their nebulous motives are entirely in keeping with the rest of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) -- a cabal of failed politicians, buccaneer businessmen and part-time civil servants. Nevertheless, the BCCI's backroom conspiracies don't interest normal human beings. What does bother them is team selection. This past week, the selectors dropped Rahul Dravid, arguably the country's most technically accomplished batsman. When asked to explain, Ramakant Desai, chief selector, did little more than babble incoherently. On S. Saba Karim's replacement by Nayan Mongia, Desai's verdict was: he's played "his quota of matches", it is now Mongia's turn. What is this? A transfer policy for bureaucrats?

Worse, the selectors summoned Mohammed Azharuddin and spoke to him about his "attitude". If, after 12 years of representing the country, Azharuddin has to be questioned about his "commitment" it says something about him. It says even more about the BCCI. Azharuddin's recent failure in Sharjah has led to renewed rumour-mongering about match-fixing. After the Chandrachud Committee's report, the BCCI officially believes there is no match-fixing. So why is it seen to be giving credence to such speculation? If the BCCI wants to reject Chandrachud's report, it should say so. What it can't do is play to the galleries, upbraid senior players for lack of commitment and then resort to the usual stonewalling. Let the BCCI not forget that the same gossip which accuses cricketers of tanking matches also speaks of particular selectors taking bribes from those in contention for the national cap. Somebody should tell the BCCI that soul-searching doesn't mean searching other people's souls.

Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd