EDITORIAL : THE HINDU, INDIA

The CAG's mandate

As auditor to a nation whose institutions of oversight are weak and underdeveloped, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is more than just the keeper of our national accounts. It is, in many ways, a conscience-keeper and a watchdog, which may not bite but can bark and warn ordinary citizens that something is amiss in the wider affairs of state. Like the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, the CAG has managed to protect its integrity and independence despite pressure from various arms of the state. If conducted freely and fairly, a robust audit can serve as a catalyst for corrective action. The CAG's report on Bofors in 1989 had major political consequences. Its explosive 2010 report on the allocation of 2G spectrum led to the filing of criminal charges against politicians, bureaucrats, and businessmen. Other reports may have had a less dramatic political impact but they have been equally useful. The CAG's observations may be politically embarrassing to the government but they clearly contribute to the public good. Democratic India must ensure that the government takes the work of this constitutionally sanctioned institution very seriously and removes the obstacles placed in the path of a more effective and efficient audit process.

Aware of the limitations of its mandate, the CAG has asked the United Progressive Alliance government to make three broad amendments in the 1971 Audit Act, which governs the functioning of the audit authorities. The first amendment is intended to ensure that government departments reply to audit enquiries in 30 days rather than in the open-ended manner as now. Secondly, the CAG wants the statute to stipulate a clear timeframe for the tabling of completed audit reports on the floor of the relevant legislature. The Act, as it stands today, gives the Central and State governments wide latitude in this regard and it is hardly surprising that this freedom has been abused to delay making public the audit reports that contain embarrassing observations. The third set of proposed amendments is aimed at bringing the CAG's legal mandate up to speed with the changes that have taken place in the way public money is spent. Since the 1971 Act was passed, the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution have been adopted, adding a layer of decentralised governance — and hence expenditure management — to the institutions of the state. Liberalisation has meant public money is increasingly utilised in joint ventures and public-private partnerships. Because of ambiguities in its mandate, the CAG feels unable adequately to audit this vast area of public economic activity. The government should deal with the call for a modernised Audit Act proactively.

Give Palestine its due

Palestinians have yet again been denied their due. The recently concluded session of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee rejected the first-ever Palestinian nomination. While it considered proposals from six West Asian countries, it overlooked Palestine's proposal to include the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, one the oldest functioning churches, in the world heritage list. The proposal was rejected not on merits, but because UNESCO did not consider Palestine a sovereign state. Getting world heritage status has been critical to improving the protection of heritage sites. In 2002, the Israeli forces besieged and damaged parts of the Church of the Nativity, which is more than 1500 years old and a site of importance for Muslims as well. In 2005, experts listed many more instances of wanton destruction. For example, the Israeli Military Command destroyed 22 historic structures in the old city of Hebron, and permanent structures were built atop the archaeological site of Tell Rumeida. As recently as in 2010, instances of illegitimate appropriation of Palestinian monuments were reported. The hope was that a formal international recognition would serve as an additional deterrent and help Palestinians in nation-building.

Realising the urgent need to protect the cultural sites, UNESCO started training Palestinians to identify important heritage structures and implement the World Heritage Convention. In 2005, a list of 17 monuments located in historic cities such as Bethlehem and Nablus was published. Unfortunately, when it came to the critical phase of nomination, UNESCO, which might plead its hands are tied by convention and the limitations of international law, failed to demonstrate the innovativeness and progressive spirit expected of it. It needs to revisit the founding moments of the World Heritage movement. About 50 years ago, the world came together to save Abu Simbel. Collective concern and gravity of the situation compelled the international community to act creatively and boldly. UNESCO demonstrated some of these traits in 1981, when it overruled Israel's objection and accepted Jordan's proposal to nominate the old city of Jerusalem and its walls for the world heritage list. The reality is that many of the identified heritage sites are in areas administered by the Palestinian National Authority, which is an internationally accepted representative of the Palestinians, and the formation of Palestine State is inevitable. There is no convincing reason to further deny Palestine heritage sites the protection and recognition they deserve and urgently need.