Reform, Commission

The Nanavati Commission report 8212; or part of it 8212; has been tabled in the Gujarat assembly. Inevitably, responses have been sharply divided along predictable lines. The Left has called it 8220;partisan8221;; the Congress has said that partiality was expected; Lalu Prasad Yadav has said that nobody will believe it anyway. The BJP, meanwhile, says that the Congress8217;s reaction reveals its double standards; the VHP has welcomed it; and Narendra Modi is busy demanding everyone apologise to him, his government, and all of Gujarat. Whatever else one can say about commissions of inquiry, and regardless of the merits 8212; or lack thereof 8212; of this particular report, one thing is certain: if such commissions are supposed to close chapters, to answer questions, to create public trust, they are failing miserably at their primary task.

This is not a new phenomenon, so we cannot blame it on increasing fragmentation in politics, or parties talking to each other less. The Jain Commission, which brought down a Union government, was called politically motivated at the time 8212; in 1997. No doubt most will say something similar of the Liberhan Commission investigating the Babri demolition when it submits its final report, due in December this year, though the government might want to extend its term a few times more to allow it to score a well-deserved half-century of extensions. The Srikrishna Commission inquiring into the Bombay riots was dismissed by Manohar Joshi as being led by a judge 8220;biased against Hindus8221;, and was ignored; the Thakkar Commission famously pointed a 8220;needle of suspicion8221; at Indira Gandhi8217;s aide, R.K. Dhawan, and was even more soundly ignored. High-profile commissions investigating politically sensitive issues have not worked since the Shah Commission investigated Indira Gandhi after the Emergency. So controversial was it that the final report had its circulation restricted and it appears complete copies aren8217;t generally available.

The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 is not serving its purpose.

Reports appear too sensitive to the question of who commissions the commission; and, of course, they can only consider the evidence made available to them 8212; a clever government can run rings around them, if necessary. The strange spectacle of competitive commissions delivering differing verdicts will inevitably sap public confidence in their reports. Yes, nowhere in the world are commissions universally trusted 8212; a shocking proportion of Americans still disbelieve the Warren Commission8217;s conclusion that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. But we need to nuance our reading of commissions8217; conclusions and, above all, take a look at how they8217;re constituted, because it is clear that the current system is not working.