End the full-stops

There is reason for us to be satisfied that, contrary to conventional wisdom, an overwhelming majority of defence procurement cases do not r...

There is reason for us to be satisfied that, contrary to conventional wisdom, an overwhelming majority of defence procurement cases do not reflect the general perception of rampant corruption in defence deals. The defence minister had referred 1,200 files to the CVC in 1993, covering all cases of procurement since 1989.

The CVC concluded two years ago that only 80 of these required further inquiry, and subsequent scrutiny showed that most of these cases are in the nature of procedural audit observations. Of these, only ten have now been found deserving of further scrutiny. By any standards the empirical evidence that nearly 99.2 percent of all the cases of procurement decision making in defence over 15 years do not reflect anything from the vigilance point of view indicates a sound system.

It is yet to be seen how many of the remaining ten cases show up corruption. But the existing record speaks well of the procedures in vogue and the fact that they are being followed. But that should actually spur the defence establishment to engage itself in continuous improvement in the procurement system. It is not enough to assume that everything is fine, especially now that a special scrutiny has demonstrated a sound system. We need to continuously improve upon the recent reforms in the procurement system.

There can be no denying that procurement decision-making has been adversely affected over the years by what came to be known as the 8216;Bofors Syndrome8217;, where people at all levels simply avoided taking decisions for fear of being accused or tarnished with the defence corruption brush. This, perhaps even more than the resource crunch, has been more debilitating than corruption, since this impacts much more adversely on the modernisation and preparedness of the defence forces.

The outcome of the scrutiny of 1,200 defence deals by the CVC should provide the confidence in the system to engage in timely decision-making. It may, in fact, provide a case for an audit of the decision-making process to remove bottlenecks that can prove so frustrating.