 Welcome to Mumbai, India's business and financial capital. This country's new economic growth is being driven not just by great innovation and enterprise, but by extreme levels of corruption and the paying of bribes. In recent months, an enormous popular movement has turned upside down all the assumptions of political and corporate power. Increasing numbers of big names are charged with alleged involvement in large-scale corrupt practices. Now there is even talk of legalising bribes. Within this BBC world debate we ask, can India beat corruption? At that point we're going to have the titles, we're not playing them here for technical reasons, picking up. I'm McGyne here at the World Economic Forum's India Summit. Our debate on this critical issue consuming Indian public life is led by leading figures from the government, civil society and the corporate world. Ashwani Kumar is not just Minister for Planning and Parliamentary Affairs. He's the Prime Minister's point man, point person on corruption. Kiran Bedi was India's first female police officer and rose to a high rank. She's now a leading figure in that massive new popular movement to end corruption. Adi Godredge chairs his own enormous consumer goods company, The Godredge Group. He's also President-designate of the Confederation of Indian Industry and has been chairing the CII's new efforts to end corruption. Yw Getla Bell is Chair of Transparency International, which monitors good and bad governance around the world. Ladies and gentlemen, that's our BBC world debate panel. Welcome to you all. We'll first be critical issues that are suddenly turning upside down so many fundamentals of political and business life across this vast nation. QCD, please. Front so publicly. It's the endemic level of corruption. Last April, Anna Hazara, a 74-year-old former army driver and now social activist, started a fast to end corruption. It's do or die now, just like the independent struggle. Either we succeed or we sacrifice our lives. A giant telecom licence scam had cost the government $40 billion. Contracts for the Commonwealth Games were mired in alleged corruption. A cash-provoked scandal rocked Parliament, leaving the government suddenly vulnerable. Everyone at every level of life knows they have to pay bribes, large or small, to get almost anything. Anna Hazara's protest picked up extraordinary and unprecedented online support from millions of Indians. In just 96 hours, it forced the government to give in. A new anti-corruption law would be put to Parliament. But despite the intense public clamour, the politicians dragged their feet, diluting the commitment to an independent ombudsman known as Lok Pal. So in August, Anna Hazara threatened a new fast. The police were ordered to detain Anna Hazara first thing one morning, of his closest and most passionate supporters. Two days later, Anna Hazara was released from jail, with even greater status as the hero fighting institutionalised wrongdoing. Millions of concerned Indians exercised their right to access public information, including logging what they know on a website ipaderbride.com. Sinister forces seem to be at work. This is a tribute Facebook site to Shilah Masood, a prominent activist against the abuse of power by government and corporates. She was found shot dead in her car, just as Anna Hazara was put in jail in August. Her fate is not unique. Despite the growing protests, vested interests seem determined to ensure their way of life by a petty or large-scale corruption is not threatened. So that's the challenge now facing India. Before we go to the panel, I just want to ask all of you here one question. First, how many believe India can and will beat corruption now? Put up your hand if you believe that. I would say a third of this unscientifically gathered audience. And those who believe it cannot be beaten with the current pressures publicly. Put your hand up please. I would say it's about 50-50, but probably more believing that India can and will beat corruption. So what's the scale of corruption in this country? You get, you are not from India, but you analyze, you monitor. What is the scale of corruption in India? In a recent survey that we did with the population of India, one in four people indicated that, I'm sorry, two in four people indicated that they had paid a bribe in the previous year, which is very high by comparison to the rest of the world, which is about one in four. On the other hand, in asking people, do you think you can beat corruption? 74% of the people in India said yes, compared to about 49% elsewhere, which I think is a very good sign. And the word that has been used by Transparency International is extreme. Why? Well, because it's the vastness of it. It's the corruption of the grassroots level, which I think is affecting people. And that's why the people are saying that, you know, they had to pay a bribe to gain access to essential services like health, education, land permits, which is the lifeblood of the people on the ground. Adi Godrej, I have here the Confederation of Indian Industries Code of Business Ethics. By your judgment, how extensive and how deep-rooted is corruption in India? I think it's quite deep-rooted. It's quite widespread. Yeah, I would use the word quite, because I think it's still less than in some other developing countries. But anyways, it's far too much to be tolerated. But the bad news in India is it's not just business to government or business to bureaucracy type of corruption. It is also in petty corruption, which almost every citizen has to face. And that perhaps is even more pervasive than the business to government type of corruption. Would you accept what Sonia Gandhi, the head of the governing congress party, called it last week? She called it a big disease that affects everyone. Yes, I would agree with that. And we need to considerably reduce this corruption. I'm not one of those idealists who thinks you can eliminate corruption, but you can reduce it very considerably. And I also feel that corruption has had a major effect now on GDP growth too. Right, Kieran Bedi, you represent what is now called Team Anna, the movement which has built up extraordinarily in the last few months here in India. Do you believe that many of those who have mobilized, the millions who have mobilized behind the cause, are themselves takers and givers of bribes? I think two out of those four were primarily givers. That is how they connected. Because each one of them had had a feeling of hurt. Till this movement, each one of them had reconciled and surrendered and adapted. They had adapted. Those who could pay paid and those who couldn't pay got away from the margins. They got away from the mainstream. I think those are the people and they were urban, they were rural and they were all-faked. How deep-rooted is it? A few other cities connected with us. How deep-rooted is it? Tremendous. It's even much more. Because those who still you could go back to transparency international would go and connect, may still not have access to those people who are not as mobile. But they do pay for water, irrigates with school, hospital, etc. Minister Kuma, let me put it to you. Your government is still not gripping the totality of this enormous challenge now to India. How would you describe the level of corruption in this country? Corruption in this country is a stark reality. I have not weighed it on a scale or measured it on a scale. But I do know that a vast number of people in this country either are victims of corruption, certainly at the level of the delivery of the public services. That is why there is a sense of alienation. There is a sense of hurt. It has lowered our image. It has caused us economic growth. But this country is and will always fight corruption. We are in a position to combat this malaise. And it has to be fought. It is a national agenda. It is now a single individual's agenda. And that is why there is a resonance in this country. As far as the government is concerned, the government has come forward and has already announced a series of measures that will be introduced in Parliament. Let me put to you. There are many out there who think that the government has been slow, wrong footed, ledden footed, outsmarted by the scale of the public protest. I don't think that is quite right, Nick. The issue of corruption has a resonance in this country always. It has been brought to the fore now, as never before, thanks to technology, thanks to the media. And I think the government has not been slow in responding. I do want to make a point. When Mrs Gandhi spoke about the need to eliminate discretionary quotas and powers, she was actually hinting at a much larger frame of reference to combat corruption to tackle it at its source. When the Prime Minister talked of judicial accountability, the whistleblowers need to bring a bill to prevent corruption by corporates. We are now thinking of a legal architecture that would be robust and not confined to only the institution of the low power, which in the winter session will be brought forward. Actually kick-started the whole process of a strong, robust legal architecture. Cherubiri, let me just be clear. Are you comfortable and satisfied with the pace at which the government is tackling this? So far, we've only had statements. So far, we've only had statements in the trust deficit as huge. We would welcome, actually we're all waiting to celebrate Diwali after the winter session this year, because we will hopefully get the gift of the general public bill. Right. Let me go to Nisha Agrawal, who is Chief Executive of Oxfam in India. Thank you. We just heard about how widespread the giving and taking of bribe is in India, and it's because of the widespread acceptance of this practice. We believe Team Anna has taken a very legalistic approach to this problem. In addition to legal things, for example we have a domestic violence law, but in addition you need a campaign to change public attitudes. Is there something that we should be doing as a nation to make the giving and taking of the most abhorrent thing we do? Is there something clear to get Labelle of how any country can tackle this? You're looking at it from outside. Well, I think that the point that you've just made is essential. If the people feel that there's nothing they can do, it's very hard to change, because they will continue, they will normalize the idea of putting money under the table to gain access to services. But the day that people say no to impunity, and say no to corruption, and begin to band together, one aspect. But there are a number of ways too, and one of them is for civil society organizations to work with the community and local governments, because that's where a lot of it is happening. Karen Bedi, what do you believe can be done and should be done to change public attitudes? Team Anna adopted two approaches. It adopted a top, bottom, top and bottom approach. The top approach is legalistic, because if you don't have a legal system, where do you get people caught and punished? And how do you raise the risk level? That was why we focused on, for the first time, an abourdsman in this country getting since independence 64 years ago. You know the first local bill was introduced in the parliament in 1968. It's 2011 now. It was introduced eight times in the parliament and never made it. So we've done a top, bottom approach. Now the bottom approach is mass awareness. That is why Anna Hazaryl, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and all of us team are going around the country doing water awareness. Saying, remember, this vote is for another vote in the parliament. And the vote in the parliament means the local bill. So this is how it's a bottom up approach. It's not complete. Minister Kumar, you're shaking your head. Quite clearly, you can't have legislation under public frenzy. It's brought with consequences. I mean, look. But you can't ignore it. Nobody is ignoring it. That's not the point. The point is, has law anywhere in the world either stop prostitution, gambling or corruption? Law, as a lawyer I can tell you, is an instrument of change only if it is not ahead of its time and not if it is behind times. Today we do know that we need a law, which is one part of the story. But the question that the lady put is a germane and a relevant question. The bridegiver must decide that under no circumstances he must give bride. All stakeholders, the citizenry of this country, the people of this country, as part of the evolution of national character, have to reject the culture of bride giving and bride taking. And I'm not for a moment defending or seeking to defend those who take bride. They must be hanged. They must be punished. The processes have to be constitutional. The processes have to be legal. The processes have to be fair. The justice delivery system cannot be such as to tarnish everyone with the same brush. It is the biggest form of tyranny that you can bring to bear when populist pressure, which is a transient impulse of a moment, is sought to, is used to undermine constitutionally established structures. Karen Berry, are you satisfied with that answer? What was his question? What was his answer? I was elsewhere. But the focus is as I play. All right, well, let me go to Addy Godredge. No, Karen, I'll go and think about the answer. Addy Godredge, I have in front of me this code of business ethics. Is that changing public attitudes or not? Yes, I would say that will help. I think the ombudsman or the logpal will help. But only exposure and punishment is not the solution to fight corruption in India. Beyond that, we must make things transparent and increase poverty in government. We have too many case-by-case decisions in government in India. Too many windows where we have to go and get permission. Then we say we will have a single window. But basically we should have no window operation of free enterprise in this country. If we can move in that direction, there will be much less reason for corruption. You must remove the root cause of corruption first. Not necessarily first, but bring in exposure and punishment at the same time. The two together will, in my opinion, work very well. I'm at Kapoor from the Institute for Competitiveness in India. My question is, if you really look at India, the problem is that it's a mindset issue. If you really want to change India, we'll have to change the mindset of people. A country which worships the God of money. That means there is an inherent desire for money and there is an inherent greed within the system. How do we actually fight corruption in this case? I would think unless you raise the risk level, unless you make punishment a certainty, unless you make the proceeds of the ill-gotten wealth, not yours, insecure, you will continue to have greed prevailing. The only way to check greed. When did greed expand in India? It's from 1991 when economic liberalisation took over and you had much more bigger volume of money. We are all for economic liberalisation. We are with economic liberalisation. There shall be police reforms, judicial reforms, political reforms. And since 1991, you've stopped only economic reforms. You've not brought in independence of policing. You've not brought in judicial expedition. And you've not cleaned up your election system. Which is why these choices are higher. Minister, that issue of a mindset. Can a government, can a parliament change a national mindset? One quote here. It's coded into our natural DNA here in India corruption. I disagree with that. I think corruption is not a part of Indian ethos. It was never a part of Indian ethos. But today it is a reality for a number of reasons. Greed certainly is one reason. But as I said earlier, law can be an instrument of change. It can be an instrument of arising consciousness and the pain of feeling consequences for wrongful actions is certainly a deterrent. But the larger issues of persuasion, of cultural orientation, of right education, right value systems, beginning from the home to the schools and colleges is what will ultimately help us fight if not eliminate corruption. So there has to be a comprehensive programme of fighting this corruption and not one institution by itself. And we want a very effective law file. But we also want a robust legal architecture that could combat corruption at various levels but also the right curricula, the right training, the right value system. At the end of the day, corrector is a function not of law. It's a function of evolution of one's life. If you study corruption across the globe, there's least corruption in countries where there's least permission required, whether it's for day-to-day activity by citizens or for business. The less the permission is required from the government, the less the corruption. It's nothing to do with Indian culture. It's nothing to do with Indians. If we reduce the government control over various permissions in this country, we can reduce corruption very considerably. In answer to Kiran's point, the corruption has grown since 1991. I don't believe it has anything to do with the opening up of the economy. But because we opened up the economy, because we brought in free enterprise, the economy has grown tremendously, which has benefited the country. And with that, the level of corruption in terms of amounts have also grown. That's exactly what I'm saying. I would like to say two things that are responsible for this, if you wish. First of all, corruption is a part of Indian history. In 4th century BC, a very famous political thinker wrote in his book called The Archwitastra. He said that this state treasury must be protected from the thieves outside. It goes back to 4th century BC. He's an Indian thinker, and this Archwitastra is a political thinker too. Corruption is low when opportunities are immense. Denmark and these Danish countries have enormous opportunities. And more opportunities, there's less greed, because the opportunities are easily available. At the moment, the opportunity is very narrow. I have to be related, I have to be connected, I have to have money for, I have to be the right caste, I have to be the right family. Only then can I go... Minister Kumar. The Cotelia is Earth Chancellor, which can be referred to. Also incidentally, as a student of history, I know it was the golden age of India. The fact that there were thieves always, a few here and there in every country through the millennia, through the ages, is not an argument that corruption is a part of India's ethos or DNA. Completely wrong, I disagree. But it's about public attitudes, it's about mindsets. It's mindsets, it's public attitudes, it's character, it's character building, it's evolution of one's life's value systems, which is a function of education, of family values, of national values, of culture. It is also aided and facilitated to some extent by the right set of laws. But that's just one part of the story. And I do want to take on from where Adi left. I think economic deregulation, in a way, eliminated the permit quota raj, and therefore reduced corruption at the level where it hurt most. The scale of corruption in cases where corruption has been found to be there may have increased because of the vastness of the lucre involved. That I am prepared to concede. What I do want to underscore very, very strongly is that to dub the entire country as having a DNA which is corrupt is completely unfair, completely unfair. But your political leader, Sonia Gandhi, has just quoted a big disease that affects everyone. It affects people by and large are honest, but most people are victims of corruption. It is in that context that the congress president said, and it is in that context that at the Buradi session, she took the lead long before this movement came in to say, eliminate discretion, reduce pitchmage, because that is where corruption breeds. And then the NFC introduced the Right to Information Act to introduce transparency and accountability. This UPA government and the party that leads the government has been in the forefront of the fight against corruption and that is going to be proved by seven main legislations. Wistleblore's bill, prevention of bribery bill, citizens' grievance, redressal bill, prevention of bribery by foreign officials, judicial accountability bill, the Lokpal bill and the RTE, all of which has been introduced in this country. But this government never before in the history of this country since independence have a series of measures been taken and brought to fruition in a frame of time in response to the need to end this malaise. It is eroding into the very vitals of the Indian Republic and it needs to be addressed and we are doing all we can. Ciaran Bedi, I have to put it to you that even after the protest since April, which is what, seven months ago, and the resumed protest in August, what the minister is saying is we're moving in the direction that you're looking for. I'm glad to hear that. I'm very relieved to hear that. I think the winter session will prove it. But what kind of bill to produce is the real challenge. Why are you suspicious? Why are you worried about that? He's just said there is a clear point. Because there the government bill is derogatory. It is retrograde. It is retrograde because it's creating two central bills of investigation instead of one. Multiple agencies have been the bane of this country. You had multiple, let me complete. Can I complete? Multiple agencies have been the bane. They are still bringing a multiple agency. We needed just one central bill of investigation empowered, independent and accountable. They are still bringing two. We are saying please empower the disempowered, which is a central bill of investigation. By their bill they are still bringing to a NIC. The central bill of investigation is also pleaded before the standing committee. Please make us independent. Minister Cuma. This is the precise problem, Nick. And I'm glad that this question has come about. I need a minute to talk about it. You must have a look back. You must have the low pile, which I want you to have. That's the almost. The parliamentarians don't know their job. We respect the parliamentarians, but we don't trust the MPs. We respect the constitution, but we will not accept the discipline of the constitution. Under a banion tree, we the people, which convert themselves into we the mob, will decide what the law is. And then you come and say that you don't know your job. Well, every five years, the people of India in their innate wisdom reject the government they dislike and bring in the government that they like. If every single day you have somebody who are calling to question a duly elected constitutional government, that's the end of democracy. That's the end of parliamentary democracy. And it is B. R. Mbedkar, the file of the Indian constitution, who said in a speech, which has been titled as The Grammar of Anarchy, that if in a free country where governments are elected by a free vote of free citizens, you have this kind of anarchy where somebody will get up and say, I do not accept this law before the time has come to change the government, that would be the building of anarchy. And this country deserves better. We do not want anarchy. We are proud of a democracy. The same democracy that gives current wave is the right to question the government. We are proud of that right. We are proud of that democracy. And that democracy is not the substance of a few people. Who gets the bell? I think that the laws are essential. Are you comfortable with those seven points? I think the people of India will see this legislation coming forward in the winter. But the important part will be the enforcement and the implementation. And this is where people begin to be cynical. If after laws are passed and policies statements are made, if there is too long a lag for the implementation or it does not get implemented. So I think what will be very important here will be to ensure the implementation. Because I've seen in countries that when the people see that the laws are enforced, see that the commitment at the top is real, then they will begin to feel safer in saying no to extortion and no to corruption. I think that is all linked together to the question that was just raised before. Before I go to some of the audience here, let me just have a reality check with Addy Godredge. I was in Chennai when you drew up this code of business ethics six months ago. Points like no employee or company representative shall pay or offer to pay a bribe. No one should receive a bribe from any source. Six months on, have you got buy-in from the corporate community to this? Well, I wouldn't say we've got complete buy-in. I wouldn't pretend to. Any buy-in? Yes, definitely. Most people feel that we should go in this direction. Most people in business do feel so. I would say most people in politics feel so. The problem is, I don't think only a strong loch pal, even the kind of loch pal bill that another team has suggested will by itself solve the problem. I think we've got to dismantle government's discretionary handling of things in India. Until you do that, whether it is business issues, whether it is people's day-to-day permissions, if you dismantle the very large amount of case-by-case government permissions required in this country, that will considerably bring corruption down. I disagree with Kiran that the reason Scandinavia has perhaps the least corruption is because there are a lot of opportunities. Of course, that's a major reason. But I think countries like Scandinavia and countries like Switzerland have the least control by the government on business and daily life, so that helps very considerably. This will work in both these directions. That phrase, dismantle discretionary government handling. In other words, you can play whichever way you want, and that's sending a bad signal. No, I think as far as unregulated or unrestricted exercise of petrimage is concerned, it does breed an element of subjectivity, which in turn could lead to corruption. That is why the congress president said we need to eliminate the largest powers. But the confederation of Indian industry from Addie Godred a moment ago just said you've got a dismantle discretionary government handling. In other words, you're never quite sure what the rules are. No, I don't think that's the sense in which I would mention it. Discretionary government handling. No, I think the spirit is reduced discretion or regulated, or you cannot have an unruly horse in a discretionary power. You can't use the discretion to distribute government largesse in any way you want in return for favours. That's the spirit, and I entirely agree with it. And that is what Mrs Fonagand did reiterated in the Boryarys Session of AICC, the fundamental point. And coming to what we are trying to do, Mr Rarugand, he even spoke of giving to the local a constitutional status, which is bringing it at par with the election commission of India. So I'm brought in this point only to show that at the highest levels of the party and the government, our resolute will and commitment to have a robust legal and policy architecture to fight corruption is unquestionable. Ciaro bery. To get the constitutional status to this general local bill, the same party in power will need two-third majority present in voting. It does not have two-third majority present in voting. All it needs is simple majority if it passes a statutory bill which is within its capacity. What does it want? Does it want? Is it assured that the opposition will support it? That's exactly what we've been saying. Please bring in first what you are capable of. You have a simple majority. Bring in a statutory body which we are asking for. The day you have two-third, make it give it a constitutional status. We're very happy if you give us a constitutional status, which means is the opposition supporting you. But don't make that an excuse that we wanted to bring in a constitutional body. The opposition did not support us and therefore you can't have the bill. We will not take that. We will go back to education after December. That's it. Let's go to some other views on this critical issue, please. Could you introduce yourself? My name is Kapil Newathia. My question is to Mr Godridge. A few days into Anna Hazare's past, I sent an email to President Obama asking if we would still support US companies doing business in India. I didn't get a response, unfortunately. But I would ask you what could we as businesses do to convince foreign companies that in addition to 1.2 billion consumers, we would still support honest enterprise? I think that's going to be a very important thing. If we are able to fight corruption in this country successfully, I think it will considerably increase foreign investment into India. I also feel that if we are able to reduce corruption very considerably, it can add about a percentage point to India's GDP growth, other things being equal. So it's a tremendous development for the country, and what is happening today, I think people are blaming a little bit of flow down in government decision making to some of these issues. I look at this as short-term pain for India, but long-term gain for India. Minister? Just to answer to what Kevin said, it is not my case that we are not bringing in the statutes. I read out seven different laws that we do intend to bring in Parliament in the intersection of Parliament. When we talked of the constitutional status, we were told you can't get it done, therefore what you're saying is not true. Leave it to us. We are in government. If we can get it done, we'll get it done, but that does not detract us from our commitment to have a strong and robust legal architecture. At one point, when you say we are going to go to education, when you say we are going to go on fast until death, is it not an imposition on the liberty and the freedom of choice of others? When you want under pressure certain things to be done, it does impact on the freedom of others. People may have a choice, and you say no. You are going to create a frenzy, you are going to create a system of anarchy, and you are going to tell the government that if you don't do this, we are going to get out the members of Parliament, we are going to get out the officers of the ministers. Is it not taking law into their own hands? Did Mahatma Gandhi ever do it? Mr Anna Hazare, who is Adnan Ghan, we have great respect for him. We don't quarrel with him, but is this the way forward in a constitutional democracy? That's the fundamental question that was not brought up. I must put to you that back in April it took 96 hours, including a very viral digital campaign, which went around the country. Millions of people signing up. It wasn't just about one tent in the centre of Delhi. This was something which exploded in a way which you have conceded. It took you all by surprise. I have no problem with that. I said there is resonance in this country on an issue of corruption. All I am saying is the day you concede the legitimacy of educational politics to decode and destroy the constitutional fabric you are running straight into anarchy. Everywhere in the world, this is how anarchy comes. You've got to balance a good cause with good means. This is a country of Gandhi. The means and ends have always been important to us next. You would know that parliamentary democracies take thousands of years to be nurtured. You can't just destroy them by one movement. I'm glad that this has not been destroyed. Members of Parliament, and Karen should know this, cutting across party lines said that the means that have been adopted to force Parliament to do its business are unacceptable. That is a challenge that we have to now face. Karen Belly, this new form of digital empowerment. How much do you think this has really shaken the roots of politics here? It's broken huge monopolies. This social networking has broken monopolies. It's a deepened democracy. In fact, it's made ordinary people, even on a mobile phone, participate in the whole campaign, and that has went beyond the hands of the government. That is what dislodds them truly. In fact, that's what has actually sustained the campaign and multiplied it. In fact, this movement has deepened the democracy for the first time in this country. John Low-Pal Bill has been contributed by people across length and breadth of this country. When this law comes, it will be historical because a common man would have participated in it through a website, through an email, through an SMS, and through workshops in the corners. That's the kind of law which has been dropped in through people's participation. There's the first time it was a challenge to we the elected, from we the people. So a challenge to politics, also to the corporate sector as well, companies are going to be caught out by this new digital environment here. They should be. Right. Let me go to Joe Speland, please, from the International Business Leaders Forum here in India. Thank you. I'm interested to know, away from the politics, what can business in India do practically to reduce the risk of corruption in your companies and in your markets, and reassert the principles of good governance that can distinguish Indian business from other high-growth markets. I'm also interested what government can do itself to improve its relationship with other sectors, and what you can do in civil society practically to make sure that you are deepening democracy, as you say. And Nick Senapati, who's the managing director of Rio Tinto, the big mining company here in India. A similar issue and concern from your side. Given the pay structure that we have in India, and as I understand, one needs to pay to get a job, is it possible to actually get on top of the corruption? Do you feel yourself as Rio Tinto? Do you feel that you're involved in corruption at all, given that you're in the mining and extractive business? What would you say to those who say maybe you're part of the problem? Rio Tinto has very high standards of ethics, and we operate throughout the world on those high standards. And in India, all our business is done with those high standards of ethics, and I stand by that. I'm preventing it. If they have the right codes of ethics, the right programs, and if they decide that they're going to have a zero tolerance, and where the intersection happens a lot with government is in construction and engineering, it's in paying royalties and taxes, and if business were to report publicly, everything that they pay to the government, transparency here can be tremendous. At the same time, if we have a program here where 41 state-owned corporations are using which Transparency International is promoting, which are called Integrity Packs, where the bidders on a contract and the entity requesting the contract agree to an Integrity Packs where if anyone is caught bidding or proposing a bribe or asking for one, they're disqualified or you start over again, and millions of dollars are, if not tens of millions, are saved in this way which then can go to development but also create a very different kind of relationship between the business and the various agencies of government. Adi Godrej, I quote here from your code of business ethics, a new one, employees should follow total integrity and ethical practices in their operations. Has that been bought? Has that been accepted by not just the employees but the bosses as well? Let me explain two points. The code of ethics is meant to address both corruption between corporations and other corporations and corruption between corporations and the government. Both types of corruption are bad. Let me also say that there are many large and very successful corporations in India who have a reputation, very strong reputation against corruption, very strong reputation for ethics, and they are among the most successful corporations in India. So it is not that you cannot succeed in India with ethical standards. And I think more and more corporations will follow that. It needs a lead. This code of conduct is a lead and we hope the general environment in the country will also improve if, as I said, government transparency and property improves and if strong forms of exposure and punishment come to play in India. Karen Bedi, this idea that there are many companies who are really role models in this country, don't lump them all together. Nobody's doing that. Nobody's lumping them all together. In fact, 14 of them wrote to the government of India to bring the proper look, Paul Will, in this winter session. He's one of the secretaries to that letter. It was a corporate letter where Mr Ajipran played G and others signed it. My cousin did. So the letter did go. So we welcomed that letter. But we wanted them to go a little beyond the letter. We wanted them to go beyond the letter to come together as a group to let the government do the following. A, make all valuable contracts transparent. Put them all on the website so that people get a level playing fee. Two, all political donations to the political parties must go public, which they are not. They're currently hidden. Third, we have put a clause in our draft bill before the government, which is before the Standing Committee of the Parliament, that anybody who violates the contract and commits an act of dishonesty must be blacklisted at least for five consecutive years. This is a clause which is not a part of the government bill, but a draft of the public bill. These are the things I think would go a long way. And I would still urge the corporate world to come together as CII, as SSM, as Chambers of Commerce, come together and tell the government that our investment is falling because of rising corruption. We are one voice. At the moment they're not one voice. They're individual chambers. Let me go to Jyoti Totam, who's bureau chief for time magazine on this very issue of the credibility of business and investment and the effect on growth. Well, there's already a growing concern that corruption in India is dampening foreign investors' enthusiasm for the country and, in turn, hurting economic growth. Do you think that kind of external economic pressure can actually bring about effective change within India? And also, could I go to Rhajita Kulkami, who is president of the World Forum for Ethics in Business. This dilemma, business versus being ethical and with full integrity at the same time. This is my question, Mr. Mr. Kumar, that, you know, as is always, there is an ET-20 even in this scenario. So how there is a sense of cynicism in drawing rooms to board rooms that how can we really eradicate or even reduce corruption until the roots are treated, you know, until the high powers that be who are really benefiting are brought to books rather than just treating or cutting the branches, which is going on in the last few months. Adi Gaudrish, that's the first point, essentially that this new expectation is generating new bureaucratic problems, is meaning investment maybe is being held back. There's a degree of caution entering business. How serious is this when it comes to economic growth? Most definitely. I feel not only is this reducing investment by foreign companies into India, I think it's reducing Indian companies investment into India too. So very clearly, if we are able to considerably reduce corruption, if we can put it into a phase where there is much less of it in this country, I'm not idealistic enough to believe that it will be totally eliminated. I don't think it has been totally eliminated anywhere in the world, but if we can reduce it very considerably, it will add tremendously to both foreign and Indian investment in India and it will add to India's GDP growth, other things being equal. Joget Lebel, can I just do a reality check? Has corruption ever been totally eliminated anywhere in the world? Not that I've seen. However, there are different levels and this is what everybody should try to strive to have. You strive to have none, to start with, otherwise. And then, of course, when it happens, what you want is to have the right institutions to be able to discover quickly, deal with it, investigate it, take it to justice and let justice do its course. And what therefore should India aspire to in practical terms, given that there can never be perfection? How would you define that here in India? Well, I think that they should aspire to become in the top ten on the corruption perception in the depths of transparency international. That's possible. How long? Three to four years? No, I think that this is possible. I've seen countries, you know, do a lot of cleanup of their own situation and introducing more transparency, especially in their financial system, where everything that comes into the government is on the website, it's clear, everything that goes out is also. But we now have the UN Convention against Corruption that India has ratified, which will be, I think, a very strong impetus, I hope, for India to give itself not only the laws, but the systems to make the difference. Minister, that question from the World Forum for Ethics in Business. I take the point that this series of allegations in the past on corruption in India haven't really doused credit as a country. It has hurt the investment climate. We need to show to the world that we are committed to purposes credible and meaningful action to combat corruption with a view to eliminating it if possible, certainly reducing it. And it should not only be credible, but should also be seen to be credible. A national endeavour involving all stakeholders is a critical element in a decisive war against corruption. But what you can see, you're not sending that decisive impression to both business here in India and also around the world, that you're dragging your feet. That is why I read out a list of eight, including what I was reminded just now that we have been signatories to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which we did it in June. The series of measures that we have taken are intended to create this robust legal and policy architecture and also to send a clear, decisive and purposive signal to our countrymen within the country and to the rest of the world and to the rest of the world. But we've heard voices here of caution that it's not actually sending that signal clear and better. Nick, let me point out and glad that she brought out the United Nations Convention against Corruption by friends. If India would follow UNCAT, which is United Nations Convention against Corruption, by the way, we're the last one country to have ratified it. The last one country. After us, it's only Somalia. We've ratified it in 2011. I want to ask as an Indian to my government what has taken you seven long years to ratify this convention, number one. Number two, here's this convention which does not distinguish the public official's definition. If you look at the definition of public official's in UNCAT, it excludes the Prime Minister. It includes Prime Minister. Includes judiciary. It includes members of the Parliament committing corruption on the floor of the House. It includes Lord Barocatio and everybody. But Government Bill excludes the Prime Minister. Excludes the judiciary. Excludes the Lord Barocatio. It excludes the members of Parliament for the privilege on the House. If my minister is saying exactly this, please honour UNCAT then we don't need a John Lovall Bill. We've got it all. We've got it all. I think that's the real issue. If we've got it done. I think that's the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that a set of people say we know what is best for the country to the exclusion of all others. We will disown what the Parliament in its collective system decides. And it is not the Congress Party. It is not the ruling party. The Parliament is made of parties that are anthropically and compulsively opposed to the Congress Committee. Let the Parliament speaking for the people of India which is the most effective bill given our circumstances. We are not here to aid an international treaty. We have to apply our mind. The Parliament's wisdom is to be questioned every five years and let the people of this country who are the ultimate sovereigns in this country whose judgment is reflected in their vote in Parliament be the ultimate custodians of the kind of legislation we want. The point I'm trying to make and I'm going to take 30 more seconds on this is the fundamental issue that this country needs to address. The people of this country need to address. The voters of this country need to address. How are they going to legislate? How are they going to make laws? Is it because one person says this version is more acceptable to me or is it going to be the collective and innate wisdom of the people of India? Let the people of India in the ballot decide this and their judgment shall prevail. This is the promise of democracy. Even if it is violate of the United Nations Convention you've ratified, that's a challenge. The laws in India prevail. The Indian legislation prevails and we will bring it a law which will be consistent with our international treaty obligation. We will go stronger. We have followed the OECD code but our laws of prevention of corruption even the earlier laws were stronger and I can go point by point. This is not an area of debating an individual cross. We know what we need to do to make our laws consistent with international treaties but even more effective. I think we've had strong laws against corruption. The problem is the legal process in India whilst quite fair is extremely slow and that creates problems. Even if you have good laws if you have a very slow legal system where a judgment doesn't come for 15 years, 20 years even 30 years the law can't solve problems. So I am still a great believer that opening up less permissions from the government is one of the major ways to fight corruption in this country and I hope that happens. Minister you've got to speed up and you've got to get Parliament on your side. That's what's clear. What's clear is that we have done everything in our power not only to bring in a strong ombudsman but also every other law that is necessary to make the functioning of that ombudsman opposite and the people of India will decide the Parliament will give its world in the winter sessions of Parliament. Let me ask who has a strong view about the ombudsman and the law power and its effectiveness, likely effectiveness or not. Please. Could you just pass the microphone there please and could you introduce yourself please? My name is Fredrik Baxos. I had a telecom company investing in telecoms in India. First of all the reference to the Scandinavian environment was made. Being from Scandinavia it is absolutely unacceptable to enter into any sorts of corruption because there is an attitude from the bottom and there are checks and balances likely ombudsman arrangement that makes sure that the transparency happens. So are you convinced by what's happening or not? This has to be done and created check balance system that has been given the power to execute and what is the and what is back there again is you have to walk the talk and let things happen to unveil these things. In the Scandinavian environment the attitude is as easy as that it's like doping in sports it's not acceptable and when that attitude is with you from the outset the ombudsman arrangement is one of those mechanisms that makes sure that things are going in the right direction. Let me put it to you are you convinced by the speed the pace and the commitment on this critical issue in the last seven months or not? We can always wish for things to happen immediately and we can wish things to happen at a high speed but also we have to show a certain respect of the fact that this is a big country in huge transformations and the country has to walk that that road so to speak. Right, let me get one more view here from a senior figure who's been campaigning on this himself. My name is Arun Jagaplamka We have too many laws as I say that India has law while China has order. What we need is less of some laws and more order. The Lokpal bill may be very good but if it remains another law and is not implemented properly what we will have is more like what we have today. There is no rule of law, a rule of men. Those who are in the hard jail today are there because people have decided that they should be there. They are not there because of law. They denied their right to bail because they did not go to jail earlier because law was not applied. They are in jail because law is not being applied. Pass the microphone to your left please to Dimitri Blases who is head of corruption and the economic crime branch of the US Office on Drugs and Crime. We have heard the quoting of the United Nations. Which way should India be going in your view? Well, we were very pleased to welcome India into the growing group of countries that have ratified the convention. It was not the last. Others have followed and there are still others that need to come. You would be surprised not how many but which. India will need now to also gear itself for the review mechanism a monitoring mechanism which is a peer based and so on and it's scheduled to take place in 2013-14. I have heard many good things and I have heard many I have heard a lot of commitment. The only point is that India is indeed a big country and needs to be treated as such but I think that there are specific actions that can be taken. Some of them have been described others I think can be taken further. One area and with this I will conclude one area, one thing that can be done perhaps is for India to now that it has ratified the convention and because that gives it a position of influence in the world it would be good if it takes a snapshot of where it stands and then decide what needs to be done next. Let me move this forward because one interesting suggestion in the past few weeks has come from the government's chief economic adviser Kaushik Basu. He said now is the time to legalize bribes. Is that the way forward? Karen Betty. That's like giving up and that's debasing society to my mind. I think with great respect to the economist but I think as a simple citizen I would hate to see this liberalized because or even legitimized. I think this would be downgrading ourselves. I don't think that is exactly what he said. I think what he said is that make it not a crime for small bribe givers not for large bribe givers and a crime for all bribe takers. That is what he suggested so that where small bribes come into place the giver can expose the taker. I think that was the suggestion so I would like to correct the impression. That is my impression of what he suggested. And the view from the corporate world is this actually quite an interesting way forward? This thing is so long and you put a limit to the bribe giver's amount it should be a small limit maybe 5,000 rupees or 10,000 rupees or something like that. Then it's an interesting thing it should be debated because then what happens is a lot of bribe taking can get exposed. And again I would say that even if one accepts such a suggestion it should be for a short period of time not for a long period of time. That this provision is already in our prevention of corruption act where you go back to establish under what compelling circumstances had you to pay this bribe it's life saving or it's a compelling issue. So that gets immunity and you become a witness in that case. So there is an element where you can give that witness or complain into benefit. What do you think of this idea minister? Well there are always mitigating circumstances in any beach of law but I don't agree that you need to legitimise or legalise bribe giver's form. That's not the way forward at all because you don't then know why it will stop and what is the scale that it would require over a period of time. What is small today or what is big today may be small tomorrow. So I completely disagree with the suggestion. I think all bribes in a sense have a devastating effect on people and the small bribes are usually with the poorest people who can't afford people who earn less than $300-400 a year and if they have to pay half of this in bribes let's say there's not much left for food or anything else. So I think that any bribe is tremendously delirious and damaging to people and to people and also when you're dealing with bribes you have to take corruption further and if for example you dilute an antibiotic or dilute vaccines you sell some under the counter and you're killing people. And what about finally the idea of the message which would be sent if rather large amounts of money which have gone out of this country and are sitting in bank accounts were to be returned here in order to make it clear that that money black, grey or whatever colour is no longer, that kind of principle is no longer acceptable. Ciaran Bedi. The Swiss Bankers Association has stated that India is the largest country overseas banks both in Switzerland and Lichtenstein and others. That's what it said. Swiss Bankers Association then they bring other services which have said that India has about more than a trillion dollars overseas. I'm waiting for that trillion dollars to return because that's all we need for our entire infrastructure to be like any other developed country and I think if that is true that either should be accepted or should be fast forwarded and got that money sent. Why should we let that money lie? And I would think not should we be looking at take givers or takers but also keepers. I think these banks should be under sanctions by international authority to return the money where it belongs. I think we're waiting for a day when such banks also get sanctions. Minister Kumar. In the next press there's an item, headline about 100 crores having been recovered by the Government of India and information having been given to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of India is monitoring it. Government of India stated that we are going to do our utmost consistent with whatever the international treaties are to bring the money back. I don't think it is true that there's a trillion dollar up in the money line but I don't know. Frankly I don't know. Whatever there is, the principle is it must be brought back and the government of the day and the prosecutor's agencies of the government must try their utmost to bring back the government and that's what we are doing. But this information is floating since 2008. Eddie Goodridge, our people in business muttering about this thing. It's time to bring our money back to India. I would say that if any money created through any illegal means whether it's tax evasion or other illegal means and if it can be recovered it should be done by the Government of India. The best effort must be made on that and it is not legitimate for illegal funds to be sent and stashed abroad. I would say that the government should work on this and do its best to see that this is brought back. Secondly, the more important thing to my mind in the long run is create an economic environment where such acts do not pay such illegal transfer of funds do not pay and that can be done. There should be reasonable levels of taxes and there should be reasonably quick legal redress in this country. If that takes place I think such illegal stashing of money will automatically come down for economic reasons. Some of the best returns on capital in the world are in India. Why would people like to put their money in Swiss banks at a 1% interest if the incentives for keeping money in India are strong? I would say that you should work in both directions. At that point I have to stop you. There is a clear commitment there. Thank you all very much indeed for sharing in a very frank way the scale of the problem on this delicate but suddenly pretty fundamental public issue for the whole of India. Will there really be any big change? The public clearly want it but it is still unclear what change the politicians will finally deliver. From this BBC World debate in Mumbai me Nick Gowing, thanks for joining us. Bye-bye.