JOIN USThe disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the members of the Union council of ministers, made online this week, is welcome, but the declarations have raised some questions. The disclosures were done at the behest of prime minister Manmohan Singh.
He had last year also prodded the ministers to make a statement of their assets. Annual disclosures give an opportunity to the people to compare present assets with past assets to find out whether there is any increase or whether they have fallen. The purported reasons for both would be of public interest. If there is an increase it has to be explained in terms of the known sources of income of the minister. The declarations can also be tallied with the contents of the affidavits filed with the Election Commission. The idea is to create transparency about the wealth status and financial dealings of ministers. This is very important in these times of increasing corruption in public life, especially in the higher echelons of government and politics.
The obvious problem about the exercise, and a vital shortcoming, is that uniform norms have not been followed by all the ministers. Some of them have only disclosed the cost of acquisition of their assets, not their present value. The prime minister got a valuation of his immovable assets done by an approved valuer. It showed an increase in the value of his assets, though the assets did not increase. Most others have not done this. Some in fact did not mention any value for their immovable assets. All are required to declare the assets of members of their families. But some have revealed only their personal worth.
The picture of a person’s wealth profile will not be complete without taking into consideration the assets of family members. The ministers also should have disclosed their business interests, if any. This would have helped to find out if any personal considerations went into their ministerial decisions.
Some of the disclosures may not be convincing, and may even be contested. It is important that all elements required for a proper assessment of the information given out should be available to the public. While the exercise is a nod to openness, its usefulness would have increased if uniform norms had been followed by all ministers. It must be ensured that they do so.