Listening now

At the inauguration of India Corporate Week,Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he was aware of the nervousness and disillusionment in the corporate sector over phone-tapping,acknowledging that these powers are meant to be deployed only in exigencies related to financial fraud and national security. As a signal of serious intent,he added that the cabinet secretary has been asked to look into the issues,including authorisation for phone-tapping and leaks of transcripts,and report back in a month. The point is well taken. There is deep concern within India Inc,and it was summarised by HDFC Chairman Deepak Parekh in an interview published in these pages this week,about whether the system can be wilfully manipulated for partisan ends,with little thought to or accountability for the consequences. Business is sentiment-conscious,and if the prime minister is setting out to allay it,he must know that sage words alone will not do. In any case,the compact that appears to be in peril is not just between corporates and the government it is between citizens and the state.Certainly,technology has enhanced the sophistication with which national security and financial laws can be compromised,just as it has enhanced the tools available to the state to intrude into private communications. For the greater common good,we have ceded to the state the power of surveillance in exchange for responsibility in exercising it. It is in this context that the state appears so compromised. There is a sinister hint of the systems complicity that wed be unwise to ignore,even as well-choreographed leaks keep us titillated. And who would not be engrossed in conversations that tune us into a seemingly open-and-shut demonstration of power play,never mind that some may be accused of little more than bluster,while others face well-deserved consequences for their careers,relationships.This is why questions about these conversations are not about indivi-duals. They are also not about the actual publication of the transcripts: in an open society,if credible sources make available information to the media,it is fully entitled to take a lawful editorial call on what may interest the reader. And they are certainly not about the publication of sensitive or classified information that could amount to whistle-blowing,the holy grail of investigative journalism. The questions that must concern us relate to the release of transcripts that damage reputations through nothing more than gossip and informal loose talk. This is why inactivity of the system by assuming a spectators role,as pre-selected and edited tapes tumble out in digestible packets,shaming equally anyone mentioned simply by naming,must not be acceptable to the prime minister. Can our investigative agencies be so easily manipulated,in whats looking like a battle of rival lobbyists,into at least leaking transcripts,if not influencing surveillance? Can this air of suspicion be business-as-usual for the government? If the

answer is truly no,then it must identify who in government are responsible and ensure they face the consequences of law. Else,the promise of using technology merely to prevent future incidents will cut little ice.