Satyendra
Dubey- Death Of A Whistleblower
By Sucheta Dalal
Suchetadalal.com
10 December, 2003
At
midnight on Friday, there were 15,000 signatures to the petition-on-line
demanding full inquiry and justice in the murder of IIT engineer Satyendra
Dubey. By 11 am the next morning, another 1,100 people had added their
names to the protest. The petition http://www.petitiononline.com/modperl/signed.cgi/sdubey)
has been posted on dozens of web sites and forwarded by scores of Yahoo
groups and blogs and the number of signatories has been growing at an
amazing pace. But the Prime Ministers Office (PMO), which is guilty
of leaking Dubeys name first exposed by The Sunday Express
to the very crooked contractors that he had complained against
seems unaware about the groundswell of public anger.
The anger is not
so much at the callousness of his office; many Indians take that for
granted. It is more because the leader of the worlds largest democracy
has not felt the need to even respond to the killing of an honest young
IIT engineer trying to retain the integrity of his own dream project,
the golden quadrilateral. What the PMO probably fails to realise, despite
having an IIT engineer, as his officer on special duty (OSD) is that
the Internet is slowly channelling that anger into a quiet movement
to clean up the system. The seeds of such a Web-based movement were
sown a couple of years ago. And in the last year they have blossomed
into thousands of tiny groups that are determined to contribute their
bit towards creating a civil society.
What makes these
groups special is that they comprise secular, educated, apolitical,
middle class individuals, with specific expertise and interests. What
the Internet does is to permit them to link up with each other, network
and form support groups in minutes when they are moved by a larger issue
or cause. For instance, even the Delhi Metro Yahoo Group members, K-West
ward (Mumbai) Yahoo group and the Anna Hazare movement have all forwarded
the petition to group members and supporters. Did you know, for instance,
that the person who drafted the petition-on-line in this case is Tokyo-based
Sanjeev Sinha who works with a securities firm? It is things like these
that make the Satyendra Dubey issue different.
The Prime Minister
may have been advised to ignore the Dubey issue by traditional political
advisors who are probably counting on middle class Indians forgetting
the case as quickly as they signed the petition-on-line. But we have
reason to hope that this time it is different. That is because the Internet
links a wide variety of people into a formidable network. >From Kewal
Semlani, a consumer and civic activist who fought solitary battles,
to Shailesh Gandhi who has run a decade long effort to combat communalism.
>From Col. Ramesh Wasudeo who is Anna Hazares Mumbai face to
Dr R.K. Anand a noted pediatrician and activist. From Express Senior
Editor Prakash Kardaley testing the Right to Information Act to US-based
Ram Narayanan who is concerned about Indo-US ties. From Sudhir Badami
who crusades against noise pollution and for effective public transport
to young Kush Singh whose highly informative Yahoo group for the K-West
ward, which is slowly acquiring a national character.
The Internet links
them all. It allows public-spirited individuals to link up with like-minded
people and participate in a variety of efforts towards establishing
a civil society and promoting good governance. They can also join larger
groups such as LokSatta (www.loksatta.org), Public Concern for Governance
Trust (www.pcgt.org), AGNI etc, that are involved with a broader range
of concerns. This is just a tiny listing of the groups active in Mumbai.
There are probably hundreds of similar groups around the country.
Not all group members
may have the courage of Satyendra Dubey and gamble their lives, but
most NGO groups are campaigning for two main issues effective
use of the citizens Right To Information under the Act, mainly
to fight corruption and the need to legislate Whistleblowers Protection.
The Satyendra Dubey case covers both issues.
His letter to the
PM details how the absence of proper systems and procedures and the
lack of scrutiny have vitiated the process of awarding the contract
to the best companies. That he paid with his life for bringing the corruption
scandal to the PMs attention only underlines the urgent need to
protect Whistleblowers. And the fact that PM hasnt even reacted
to Dubeys sacrifice tells us how tough the battle will be. Having
said that, it must be clarified that mere legislation will not protect
whistleblowers. Even after the Act is passed, an Atul Tirodkar may still
be suspended and victimised for blowing the whistle on the Bombay Stock
Exchange president; and a Satyendra Dubey may still forfeit his life.
But the existence of legislation will cause at least some companies
and institutions to pause and worry about the consequences.
It is a little like
the regulation against insider trading. Until a few years ago, insider
trading was not even illegal in India. And although it is notoriously
difficult to prove, having legislation in place is the first deterrent
step. It is the same with legislation to protect whistleblowers. At
the very least, it provides basic protection such as a fair and independent
hearing and prevents employers from sacking the whistleblowers under
other regulations. It also creates the possibility of getting compensated
for harassment after a trial. There can be more. The UK Public Interest
Disclosure Act 1998 for instance lists a wide range of prescribed
persons in relevant agencies who are held responsible for dealing
with whistleblowers complaints. Had we an Act in place, Dubeys
letter to the PMO would not have been passed around so carelessly, nor
could all those who initialled it, evaded the consequences of their
callousness.
It is globally acknowledged
that the existence of legislation does not make whistleblowers out of
ordinary people. Most whistleblowers have one thing in common
a strong sense of right and wrong. And the go ahead and blow the
whistle even if they become ostracised from friends and co-workers
or are fired. In fact, harassment and victimisation of whistleblowers
is the norm inspite of legislation, or they are ignored. That is why
America has NGOs such as the National Whistleblower Center (www.whistleblowers.org)
to counsel people on the consequences of their action and to handhold
them and provide them with legal assistance during their battle. India
too needs such counselling as much or more than it needs a Whistleblower
Act, only then can we prevent other Satyendra Dubeys from paying
with their life for exposing corruption.