None of the 30 Comptroller & Auditor Generals of India before him had created the kind of waves as he did. Vinod Rai threw up gigantic figures of money allegedly stolen from government coffers. In full public glare, he exposed corruption — first 2G and then Coalgate — which shook the government's very foundation. He was attacked, his motives questioned. But Rai stood his ground. On May 22, his tenure as CAG comes to an end. But even as he departs, he has possibly fundamentally changed the character of the 153-year-old institution. Future CAGs are unlikely to be toothless auditors. Rai discusses his eventful tenure with TOI's Pradeep Thakur in a free-wheeling interview. Excerpts:

Your tenure has been very eventful. You have redefined CAGby giving it the kind of teeth that TN Seshan gave to the Election Commission. Wouldn't you agree?

The role of every institution is well defined. It's only the question of how you operationalize that role, and for operationalizing it's not the individual who matters. I wouldn't say it is combination of stars but combination of team, time and the individual. So I was lucky to have a very good team. The other factor that worked in our favour was you - the media, the 24x7 channels. Media has become so alert and it knows what needs to be highlighted. From our report, the media picked up only substantial issues.

There's a perception that the media did so because you played to the galleries, that CAG in your time has played an adversarial role to the government.

Look, audit by definition has an adversarial role. Whether it is government audit or that of a public sector undertaking, the role of audit is to find out lacuna, to try and ensure that things have been done properly. If the executive takes the suggestions positively, we are on the same side. It's not 'we' and 'they'; it's 'we'. I'm a government servant as much as the finance secretary is. We are all trying to improve the governance of the country, the delivery channels, public policies and how they function. I am giving you suggestions, but if you start stonewalling them, saying what does auditor know, then where do we go? Yes, we work in hindsight, no doubt about it. But, that is what audit is all about.




In hindsight, would it have been better presenting the suggestions in a more low-key manner instead of holding grand press conferences? For that created the impression that you are going for the government's jugular rather than providing constructive criticism.

I fully agree with you. But you must understand our difficulty. In 1988, post Bofors, the then CAG T N Chaturvedi, the government and the PAC sat together and decided how best to deal with audit reports which are placed in Parliament since lot of misinformation (on Bofors) was doing the rounds. Then we came up with this media policy where it was decided to hold press conferences. The day my report is placed in Parliament, it is also my responsibility to inform the media accurately about what the report contains. This policy is being followed since 1988. The current media policy was framed in 2006 and I joined in 2008. No changes have been brought in. I enclosed this book (media policy) to the PM when he had said that you talk to print media. I wrote to him immediately on policy and asked him, "Sir, what do you expect me to do?"

You said it was a 'combination of team, time and the individual'. What did you mean?

By time, I meant the churning going on in the society. Citizens have come centre stage. That is why I said time has come. Our report came at a time when Anna Hazare and company where doing something different. There was a general churning in society... so it is a combination of factors.

By churning are you referring to the growing resentment against corruption?

Exactly! And which I think is a very positive development. Our capacity to put up with corruption was going beyond bounds and somewhere the line has been drawn now. It is the younger generation which is making a difference. You and I may agree that if some chai paani has to be given, to get over it, but the younger generation will not tolerate it anymore. And they are the ones who came out on the streets.

Don't you feel that a person's worth in society is often measured by his wealth? Doesn't that give rise to an easy get-rich urge, even if corners are cut, or morals compromised? 

It's weakness in our mind which makes us believe that society values the money you have, that you are respected by the size of your purse. I've seen lots of people, in government and outside, who get recognized otherwise. Yes, money in India is a great distinguishing factor. But there are of two types: one is the Mukesh Ambani type, the other is a person at a lower level, the one who gives Rs 100 for a ticket reservation or if I am in commerce ministry, tip my peon only because he opens the door... these are people who are not mature.

In one of your speeches, you said 'we should go beyond tabling reports in Parliament and sensitize the public'...debate settled in your mind?

This is what I reasoned with myself and discussed with my colleagues in 2008 when I joined. I asked them what is our mandate? Is it, as per Article 151, merely to do audit, prepare reports, place them in Parliament, full stop. Or, is it something more? Why did I ask this? Because the amount of work that goes into preparing a report is humongous. The work they do is a goldmine of information. Factually it cannot be faulted, not a word that goes into it is factually incorrect. You may not agree with my recommendations, but factually nothing goes wrong.

I told my colleagues in today's context, constitutional makers have given us a slightly bigger role than mechanically place reports that we have been producing. We give about 235 reports in state legislatures and Parliament - about 65 in Parliament and the balance in the state assemblies. The PAC can't take up all the reports. They pick up a maximum of 10-15 out of 65. All other reports go into the archives. All this hard work. Don't you think I need to inform the public? We may not have press conferences on all the reports, but our mandate is to sensitize the public opinion, not sensationalize.

Like the media, you have also been accused of sensationalism, of giving out huge figures which grab the headlines. It was assumed that a humongous robbery has taken place, exciting passion...

When huge sums of money are involved what do we do? I'm talking about government revenue. Whether in 2008 or in 2010, we clearly said that we are not talking about policy as such. Did we say that in 2008 (on 2G), you should not have gone for first-cum-first serve policy? We did not. You have laid down the policy. We didn't ask why you changed your policy in 2010 and go in for auction. We started auditing only in 2010 by then both policies had been implemented. The audit regulation says we don't formulate policy, but sub-optimality of the policy has to be pointed out.

Having seen what you have seen, the dark side of several government operations, are you hanging up your boots with a sense of despair or is there optimism?

I am very satisfied and I am very optimistic...

Where does this optimism stem from?

Look, these are institutions. Individual aberrations will be there. But the time has come when the citizen and the media have started holding the government accountable. If citizens hold the government accountable, institutions will be forced to deliver. For anybody sitting in this chair henceforth, there will be pressure on him or her to deliver.

So, the person in this office will not become a poodle or lame duck?

There will be pressure on him to deliver as per the objective of the institution. I have no hesitation in saying this. If you say I went for sensational figures and he or she may choose a different path, it's possible. But auditing parameters clearly lay down the quantifications of auditing on sub-optimality of policies.

What was your most difficult hour in CAG?

Well, I don't think I had a difficult hour as such, but there were lots of things that came together and, well, the only thing was I didn't succumb to pressures. I am not talking about pressure from the government or anything like that. Fortunately, I didn't have to face all that. The pressure was of different kinds -- those of opinions, insinuations and interpretations of whatever we have been trying to do.

Having worked under Mr Chidambaram, was it difficult to disagree with him in your reports?

In fact, we rarely discussed audit reports. Mr Chidambaram, Mr Jaipal Reddy and the PM, they are very clear and categorical and positive in their approach. Some time with some people you find normal human reaction - if you hit me, I hit you back. And when I hit back, what is the frame of mind I am in is important. Your reaction depends a lot on that.

Will you say you got same the positive response, as you did from the PM, from Congress PAC members?

No, I don't want to comment on it. But if you are ill-informed and if you don't do your homework, you don't see things in right perspective. I don't want this expression to be used for an MP or a member of the PAC, but any individual who is ill-informed and has not done his homework, his reactions will not be from the mind, but from the heart. And that's where they go wrong.



Your scrutiny of public spending was not received by the UPA in that same spirit. Cabinet ministers saw it as adversarial, something that was politically motivated and fuelled by your post-retirement plans...

(Laughs) The best was Mr Jaipal Reddy's reaction. When we gave our draft report on KG basin, he commented: "There are two options before us. The recommendations of CAG, those which are feasible, I accept and we will implement. But there are others which we don't agree with and those I will explain to Parliament or the PAC. There is no other option." He said "neither has he (the CAG) criticized us nor do we criticize him. There is lacuna in the system and in interpretation of production sharing contracts which we will rectify". That's the best approach.

What was your reaction when Kapil Sibal came up with his zero-loss theory?

I felt sorry for them. I have never said this before, but I actually felt sorry for them. I told the JPC, fair enough, you don't accept my figures. I gave four sets of figures, but you don't accept them. Fine. But in my report I have said that there has been loss and that cannot be denied. The quantum of loss can be debated. I told them your own agency, CBI, has said there was a loss of Rs 30,000 crore. In their FIR they have mentioned it. I asked them, are you going to condone Rs 30,000 crore? If you are willing, I will go out and give a statement that I withdraw Rs 1,76,000 crore figure. That's why I feel sorry for them. Will anybody believe that there was no loss?

You added to the audit lexicon the phrase 'presumptive loss'. Why was it never used by anyone before you?

You say government didn't use the 'presumptive loss' or 'presumptive gain' phrase? I will give you a copy of the Direct Tax Code Bill. It is a government bill which uses this. I also pointed it out to the JPC, particularly to Mr Manish Tiwari, that your own bill mentions concepts of 'presumptive profit' and 'presumptive income', though this was picked up from IMF because worldwide the auditing community uses this. He (Tiwari) said, "Yes, but it doesn't talk of presumptive loss'. Obviously, you can't levy a tax on loss. It is the Direct Tax Code Bill.

Mr Chidambaram has been accused of inflicting a major problem on the govt...

... (Laughs) in the name of Vinod Rai?

Your reaction?

Why do you say that I was the choice of Mr Chidambaram? Just because I worked with him? If Sindhushree Khullar is appointed (as CAG), do you think it is Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia's choice? Or, if S K Sharma is appointed, will he be Mr Antony's choice? The process is that the Cabinet secretary puts up few names, the FM does due diligence and recommends a panel and the PMO and FM has discussion. Then an interaction is conducted with two-three candidates. I had an interview with the PM and then the choice was made. Whose choice was P J Thomas (former CVC)? If Chidambaram inflicted Vinod Rai on the system, who inflicted P J Thomas? You and I can only make a conjecture, isn't it?

What did you feel when your ex-colleague RP Singh said that he disagreed with the 2G presumptive loss figures and that he was pressured...

In R P Singh's farewell I remember having said he is a valuable asset...because he did that (2G) audit. Somebody gets mislead or gets won over or gets a rethink, that does not mean he has done all wrong things. Before going to the JPC he had met me and I told him, "RP remember only one thing, don't go factually wrong. Opinions can vary, but don't go wrong on facts."

He stuck to the facts?

He made some mistakes there. For example, he said we don't calculate losses. I placed in the JPC a report by him where he has calculated losses.

That's not a simple mistake. Did you feel betrayed by him?

Why should I feel betrayed? You feel betrayed when you put all your trust in one person. I called him a valuable asset because he did a good audit. I did not call him a valuable colleague.

Your grandstanding as CAG has often been linked to your alleged desire to be part of some political party. It has been said that you were in cahoots with the opposition as part of a grand conspiracy against the government...

You must understand that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman is always from the opposition party. In the Constitution, it says the CAG is an adjunct of the PAC and he sits on the right of the PAC chairman when he attends the meetings of the PAC. And before the meeting, I have to brief the chairman. I had met him, and had meetings at his home also. Not only Murli Manohar Joshi, whoever is there, it is my duty to meet and brief the chairman. Whenever people find themselves in adverse situation and find no substantive argument, they will make allegations.

In the past there have been instances of people holding constitutional post joining politics. M S Gill was post as CEC. He later became an MP and a minister. T N Chaturvedi, the former CAG, is another example. But whenever this question has been put to me, I have neither said 'yes' nor 'no'. If I say I will not join, you will not believe me. If I say I will join, you will say "bola tha na". But I am making it clear today. I have been apolitical all my life. Now, in the 65-years plus age why should I change? What do I gain from this?

But your productive life is still there. What are your plans?

I really have not made my plans yet. But it's certainly not contesting an election or to be in a political position, OK? Probably, I have lot of experience in financial sector and I may do something part time there. But it will be only fair if I start thinking on all this after I retire... discussing something with somebody is not fair to my current job. Nor is it fair to start hobnobbing with some politicians... So, I think it's a feeble mind that makes such allegations (about me joining politics).

How would you describe yourself in a sentence?

(Laughs) Give me three. A man with a robust common sense, good presence of mind and very decisive. Good or bad, I decide. In my mind, I have a white and a black, there's no grey area in it.

Do you have anything you have to say to your successor?

Lots... (laughs). Obviously, we brief each other.

...And to budding bureaucrats?

Play the game in the spirit of the game. Don't take short cuts. It doesn't stand you in the long run. With short cuts, may be three years of my life will become more comfortable, but not 30 years.

Thank you Mr Rai. Wish you a splendid innings in your years ahead.

Thank you.