Whistleblowers in East & West!
ON A cold winter morning in late November 2003, Satyendra Dubey, a young engineer working for the National Highways Authority, was murdered by contract killers. His fault — he was an honest and upright officer who refused to follow the diktats of the powerful local construction mafia. His murder had drawn widespread condemnation from all quarters. One day justice may get done but Dubey will remain dead and probably be long forgotten by then.
Just two days after Dubey's murder thousands of miles away in Australia, Andrew Wilkins was being presented with the Whistleblower of the Year Award at the Legislative Assembly by the United Nations Association of Australia. He also received a $5,000 cheque from an anonymous donor. All this came to him for the courage he showed when he resigned from Australia's top intelligence assessment agency, the Office of National Assessment, in protest against the government justification of its war with Iraq.
Classic examples
Both cases are the classic examples of whistleblowing. Both men were insiders who coming to know of corruption and malpractice in their organisations brought it to light — something that the others in their departments did not dare. Their circumstances too were similar. While the former had complained of irregularities in awarding contracts and financial malpractices in the Prime Minister's dream project, the latter had complained of deceit, falsification, distortion and exaggeration of intelligence reports by the Prime Minister's office in order to justify its claims to go to war.
The point of divergence comes only when we look at the treatment meted out to whistleblowers and the consequences that followed. In India, whistleblowers are murdered or victimised and only a hue and cry from the public and media can compel the government to start a probe. But in Australia, Wilkins could not only testify to the Parliamentary Committee but also represent himself before the Hutton Commission in the U.K. which was probing the circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly, Britain's senior weapons inspector. He could do this with some assurance of being protected against powerful interests and this must have sustained his courage. Dubey clearly knew he had little he could rely on but nevertheless risked his life. While the impending report had been sending shivers down 10 Downing Street till Lord Hutton submitted his report on January 28, in India, the government had started the blame game even before instituting a CBI enquiry into the whole episode: and that too only when public pressure had mounted across the nation.
Whistleblower legislation, like the right to information laws, are little known or appreciated in developing countries, while most developed countries have had these for some time now. The U.S. has a Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1989 (amended in 1994). It has been strengthened by new laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which contains new protections for corporate whistleblowers and the False Claims Act that was first proposed by Abraham Lincoln way back in 1862 to combat fraud by defence contractors and strengthened in 1986 after evidence of defence rorts. It is the application of both the Whistleblowers Protection Act and the False Claims Act that confers protection to U.S. whistleblowers.
The U.K.'s Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 on the other hand provides protection to employees in the public, private and non-profit sectors. All the five States in Australia have whistleblowers legislation although it does not have a national law. New Zealand too has the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 that came into force in 2001.
Of the developing countries, South Africa has followed the U.K. example in providing protection to employees of all organisations through its Protected Disclosures Act of 2000; however other developing countries, including India, need to follow suit.
In India, an Act to protect whistleblowers is being pressed by civil society groups who understand the value of it for reducing corruption and cronyism and increasing merit-based clean governance, as also for providing official protection and recognition to those who expose corruption. But there seems to be little will to put in place really practical measures that will have an instant effect in reforming institutions that are at present riddled with wrongdoing. Under a whistleblowers law, insiders with information do not have an automatically easy time. They must garner sufficient evidence, provide it to the government and convince authorities that it is sufficient for them to take it up as well as to initiate protection measures for the whistleblower. The risk of exposure during this procedure is considerable and the strain of it contributed significantly to the tragedy of David Kelly.
Some encouragement
In places like England and Australia some encouragement is provided to whistleblowers because there is a belief that hard as it may be, it will not take decades to reach a conclusion. Eventually there will be consequences and accountability will be fixed on someone. Even though the enquiry censured the BBC for the whole affair and termed Dr. Kelly as a `difficult person,' Lord Hutton did not delay in delivering his judgment. David Kelly died in July. The Hutton Enquiry was appointed soon after his death. It sat in public for six weeks and its report was available to the public after the report was presented in Parliament. Although the Hutton Enquiry had indicted the BBC and absolved the government of wrongdoing, Tony Blair had earlier hinted of his resignation if found guilty.
No such assurance of speed or political repercussions exist here. In Australia, Andrew Wilkins being rewarded for exemplary courage provides an impetus for others to act in the same way. The West rewards its brave men in civilian clothes. In India, the way Satyendra Dubey was done away with will discourage thousands who will gulp down compromise and keep quiet. Whistleblowers are our soldiers not in uniform. They are our real heroes. They die twice if no one acknowledges their bravery or learns from their sacrifice. Public protest is not enough.
Satyendra Dubey who was little known in life is, in death, a national figure. He symbolises the superhuman struggle that small people wage against all odds. He died for being honest. Neither the law nor the government could protect him. The government should at minimum award him a medal for extraordinary bravery and honour his memory by quickly operationalising laws such as the Right to Information Act and a Whistleblowers Protection Act so that at least others don't have to die.
ADITI DATTA
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
