- Should we dam auto promotion?
- Is Getting Elected the Best Investment?
- Are you stuck with wrong spouse?
- Why not bury E-mails with the dead?
- How should couples handle money?
- Balance Sheet of our Lives
- Now, Laugh Your Way To Good Health?
- Bondel Laughter Club - Spreading Happiness
- This Website Has Heritage Roots
- Adieu Pus-Pus (Cat)!
- Does Power Beget Wealth?
- Mother’s day:: Mothers Don’t Care How Famous You Are!
- Eco-friendly Coffee – Book by Dr Anand & Geeta Pereira
- John Monteiro - Like old wine, he gets better with age
- Prison Reforms..!
- Difference between Mechanical engineer and Civil engineer
- “Drugs Are No Unqualified Panacea!” – Prof. B. M. Hegde
- Drug Banks for poor patient
- Teacher and pupil
- Husband and Wife
My first book: Corruption – Control of Maladministration
I welcome the publication of this study on corruption and the remedial measures which can be adapted to control or correct it.
The writer has attempted to cover a wide field and done it with considerable measure of success. He begins with an examination of the volume of corruption, goes into the causes and deals in part with the remedies suggested to enable us to rid ourselves of this danger to our body politic by authoritative bodies and others. The survey made by the author of the situation in some other countries in regard to this evil is very helpful in as much as it enables us to look at corruption in our country in the right perspective. There has been a tendency in some quarters to exaggerate the evil and in others to give it a much smaller dimension than it really bears. The author also deals with the remedies adopted in different countries to protect governments and the public against this evil and the success achieved by these measures. This part of the study is invaluable as we are ourselves in quest of an appropriate solution to this problem facing us.
Part IV dealing with ‘Ombudsman of India’ is bound to be of particular interest to the average citizen; for, more than any other institution, that of the Ombudsman is designed to help the common man against the evils not only of corruption but of administrative lapse and abuse.
Recently a gathering of jurists representing the Asian and Pacific region had occasion to consider the usefulness of the institution for this region. The view taken was that notwithstanding remedies to be found in courts of law and in statutory appeals against administrative decisions there still remained ‘a gap in the machinery for the redress of grievances of the individual against administrative acts or omissions’. It was said: “This gap should be filled by an authority which is able to act more speedily, informally and with greater regard to the individual justice of a case than is possible by the ordinary legal process of the courts. It should not be regarded as a substitute for, or rival to, the legislature or to the courts but as a necessary supplement, to their work, using weapons of persuasion, recommendation and publicity rather than compulsion’.
The opinion was also expressed that the institution had a useful role to play in this region provided that it could be adapted to meet the special problems created by racial, religious and linguistic groupings in their relative strength. It was emphasized that the person constituting the Ombudsman should have the confidence of all the sections of the population and of all parties in the legislature. He should enjoy the same security of tenure and salary as that of a Judge of the highest court. His power of investigation should not however extend to the head of the State, Judges and the discipline of the armed forces. Dealing with the question whether regimes which do not have a Parliamentary system of Government could benefit by the institution, conclusion reached was that it had ‘a considerable value in the existence of an independent office to supervise the administration and redress the grievances of citizens under regions which do not have Parliamentary system of Government’.
These conclusions are of great value in determining whether the institution can with a reasonable chance of success be introduced into our country with adaptations needed by our circumstances and our social and political structure. The question has been discussed for a number of years in our country. It is, I think, time that intellectuals, social workers and others interested brought the question a head. Some only of the recommendations of the Santanam Committee have been given effect in a half-hearted manner. The results of the vigilance officials and bodies recently initiated so far as they are known to the public do not hold promise of further achievement and are in no way comparable to those which may justifiably be expected to result from the adoption of the institution of the Ombudsman. The proposals made the Committee in regard to corruption at the level of ministers appear to have been shelved.
No doubt we have very immediate and grave problems which demand attention. But as has been repeatedly asserted the canker of corruption, in the proportion it is said to have attained, may well dig into the vitals of our democratic state and eventually destroy it.
I trust this new publication will stimulate further interest and discussion on the very important topic with which it deals.
31 January 1966
The belated appointment of the Administrative Reforms Commission and Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari’s resignation, albeit two unrelated events, have amply vindicated the thesis underlying this book. The first of these events clearly reflects the Government’s concern over the numerous shortcomings in the administrative machinery which have been the breeding ground for corruption. The nature of these shortcomings, and possible corrective measures, have been outlined in this book. Mr. Krishnamachari’s resignation following his disagreement with the Prime Minister over the mode of enquiry to be followed to investigate charges of corruption against Ministers, has confirmed my own thesis regarding the ‘current confusion’ in this field. The plea for an Ombudsman made in this book could not have been better timed. I would earnestly appeal to the Administrative Reforms Commission and enlighten citizens at large to examine dispassionately and objectively my proposals for Ombudsman and facilitate the introduction of the institution in this country.
I have often wondered why I should have – interrupting my professional career at its starting point – undertaken study of a dismal subject. Men better equipped than myself, in age and wisdom, could have done fuller justice to the subject. But there was no time for second thoughts. The best justification for my present attempt is provided by Edmund Burke when, in the course of his speech on conciliation with America, he said: ‘public calamity is a mighty leveler; and there are occasions when any, even the slightest, chance of doing good, must be laid hold on even by the most inconsiderable person.’
That is about the genesis of this study. But once started, the study had the benefit of advice from a wide range of people who sacrificed their time to encourage, help and guide me. At an early stage, I had shown the outline to Mr. M. C. Setalvad, ex-Attorney General of India and presently President of the Bar Association of India. Besides saying that the study would be useful, he was kind enough to make a number of suggestions and also, subsequently, to agree readily to write the foreword for the book. This has been a great source of inspiration in my work ever since and I can hardly find words to express my gratitude to Mr. Setalvad. My thanks are also due to Professor P. R. Ranganatha Rao, Professor of Law at the Government Law College, Bombay, who was king enough to go through the manuscript, particularly those parts having a bearing on law, and to make a number of useful suggestions. Mr. George T. Luis, currently Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London, rightly deserved my thanks for doing a thorough job of going through the manuscript and making the necessary corrections and improvements. It is also my pleasure to acknowledge with gratitude the secretarial assistance rendered, so cheerfully and readily, by Mrs. Jesse Noronha.
The credit for provoking my interest in the study, and sustaining it by concretely backing the venture, goes to a liberal and enlightened friend who prefers to remain anonymous. But for his initiative I could not have undertaken the study at this stage and I am much indebted to him.
Finally it is my pleasant duty to thank the embassies of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and New Zealand for readily supplying authoritative information of the Ombudsman institution in their respective countries, as also for their generous permission to make use of the relevant data.
Needless, of course, to add that I am solely responsible for any shortcomings in the book.
Table of content
Corruption and vigilance
1. Anatomy of Corruption
2. Dimensions of Corruption
3. Causes of Correction
4. Corruption and the Santhanam Solutions
5. Towards an Anti-corruption Strategy
Control of Maladministration
6. Present Machinery for Ventilation of Grievances
7. America: Congressional Investigations
8. France: Conseil D’Etat
9. Britain: Independent Tribunals
10. India: Quest for Independent Appeal System
11. Soviet Union: The Prosecutor
12. The Ombudsman
13. The Ombudsman in Action
Ombudsman for India
14. The Ombudsman fever
15. Quest for a Standing Tribunal
16. The Current Confusion
17. India for Ombudsman
18. The Case for an Ombudsman
19. Financial Ombudsman
What the Critics say
Bio data (Meet the editor of www.welcometoreason.com)
Journalist, communicator and author, John B. Monteiro (born 1938), who graduated from St. Aloysius College, Mangalore, came back to his alma mater in 1960, after post graduation from Bombay University, to work as a lecturer. After one year, he went back to Bombay (now Mumbai) and strayed into journalism. Starting as a free-lancer, he worked for The Financial Express, Commerce and as Managing Editor of Humanist Review, a learned journal. Concurrently, he wrote Corruption – Control of Maladministration (1965), a pioneering work on the subject then.
Joining Larsen & Toubro Ltd. as a Corporate Communicator in 1970, he retired in 1998 as Deputy General Manager. Even while holding this position, John Monteiro free-lanced extensively for national newspapers and magazines. He wrote the cover story on Mangalorean Catholics for The Illustrated Weekly of India, under the community coverage initiated by its then Editor, Kushwant Singh. He was a regular contributor to Mumbai city newspapers.
Though based in Mumbai for forty years, John Monteiro visited Mangalore frequently and covered Tulunadu subjects in national print media. After retiring to Mangalore in 2000, his second book, Some Current Topics for Debate, based on his interactive columns (earlier titled Forum and Exchange, in various publications, was published. He presently resides at Bondel and had been writing three weekly columns – Welcome To Reason (interactive), Surviving Centurions (on institutions of 100 years or more) and Meet Our Veterans ( on super-seniors of 70+ ) for the now defunct daily, Vijay Times. He also writes news-based and human-interest features for other English newspapers.
John Monteiro has traveled widely for professional seminars and L&T work in India and Asian countries, including Philippines , Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Iran Iraq, Yemen, Kuwait and UAE. He had been President of Indian Association of Industrial Editors and was instrumental in renaming it as Association of Business Communicators of India to reflect the changing media range.
From July 17, 2007, John Monteiro is editing, and providing core content for, his website, www.welcometoreason.com, which is an interactive brand developed by him over a period of 30 years.
Two angry writers(From The Sunday Standard dated 5- 11-1980)
(The late Dom Moraes, who was editing the Sunday magazine section of the Bombay-headquartered The Sunday Standard of the Indian Express Group, carried two articles on publishers, one titled The Pirates of Jaipur by Luis S. R. Vas and the second titled The Publishers of Delhi by Dom himself, with the following common introduction. Since I have access to Luis Vas and have his permission to reproduce, I am giving below only the article concerning my book).
“Author vs Publisher”, an article by K. S. Duggal, appeared on this page on August 10. Below are two new pieces which throw fresh light on the publishing scene in the country. Luis S. R. Vas documents the story of a pirated book and the strong case of its author, while Dom Moraes notes an instance of unprofessional conduct concerning the serial rights of his own book, “Mrs. Gandhi”…
At least sixteen Indian authors have been taken for a ride by a bookseller in Jaipur. He has brought out pirate editions of their books originally published by a publisher in Bombay which is now defunct. The Jaipur piracy adds insult to injury since the authors involved have earlier been deprived of considerable amounts of their royalties by their original publisher. The piracy came to light to through the vigilance of one of the authors involved – John B. Monteiro - who thought that the original publisher had treated him shabbily. Through dogged persistence he succeeded in finding out what happened to those copies of his book which had been remaindered (sold almost like raddi) by the Bombay publisher.
The genesis of this sordid chapter of Indian publishing goes back to the early ‘sixties and can be traced back through Monteiro’s own experience during the last fifteen years. In 1964, he entered into an agreement with the Bombay-based publishers giving them the right to publish a manuscript provisionally titled “Corruption and Ombudsman”. It was published I 1966 under the title, Corruption – Control of Maladministration, with a foreword by the late Mr. M. C. Setalvad, ex-Attorney General of India. The hardback edition (priced at Rs. 25) was followed by a paperback edition (priced at Rs. 12). According to clause 7 of the agreement, the copyright of the book in terms of the Indian Copyright Act vested in the author.
In the late ‘sixties the publishers ran into financial difficulties and defaulted in paying royalties to writers and dues to other creditors. With a view to avoiding compulsory liquidation, a Creditors’ Committee was formed. This committee disbursed such small amounts as accrued from time to time from the sales proceeds of all the books published by the firm. This went on till about 1975, the authors receiving only a fraction of the royalties due to them.
Then, from February 1975 onwards, the Bombay publisher made a series of offers to their authors, creditors and booksellers. These culminated, towards the end of 1977, with the Jaipur bookseller acquiring several titles at ridiculously low rates. Before this happened, Monteiro made assiduous efforts to buy back the remaining stock of his books but was thwarted in this attempt by the Bombay publishers. They allotted the stock to the Jaipur party on the ground that Monteiro’s written response to their offer reached them past the set deadline.
Monteiro says that he had put on record his standing offer “to exercise the best possible option” offered by the Bombay publishers. He says that it was difficult to keep track of their various offers and deadlines. They themselves unilaterally withdrew them. He also says that apart from corresponding with the publishers, he often met them and expressed his anxiety to acquire the stock of his book.
Monteiro found out that the bookseller of Jaipur who took over the unsold stock had acquired the copies at merely a rupee each. So he wrote to him offering him a premium on the basis of different quantities. The bookseller ignored his enquiries and did not reply to his letters.
Some months ago Monteiro ran into one of the partners of the bookselling firm in Bombay and came to know that they had brought out hard-bound copies of his book under a different title and priced it at Rs. 75 per copy. Monteiro offered to buy the unsold copies. The partner offered to check the stock and revert to him.
Since Monteiro did not hear from him again, he got a friend to buy a copy of the book at the bookseller’s shop in Jaipur for which he holds a receipt. The publication date on the copy is now given as 1980, instead of the original 1966.
The title has been changed to Corruption in India. It has a newly designed dust-jacket, apparently with the intention of deceiving purchasers into believing that it is a new book.
Monteiro contends that since the copyright vests in him and he has not authorized the Jaipur party to publish the book, there is a clear infringement of his legal rights under the Indian Copyright Act. Besides, since the contents of the book are the same, while the title is different, buyers may have been deceived into thinking that Monteiro was a party to such deception. This,Monteiro fears, erodes his credibility as an author and adversely affect his writing career in the future.
If the case of Monteiro’s book is not an exception, the modus operandi adopted by the Jaipur bookseller seems to be as follows: The books are acquired at ridiculously low price on this basis: If the original list price of each copy is below Rs. 10, the Jaipur bookseller buys it at Rs. 0.50. If it is between Rs. 10 and Rs. 21, he buys it at Rs. 1.00 and in cases where the price was above Rs. 21, he buys it for Rs. 2.
In Jaipur, the books are stripped of their hard or soft covers and the imprint page. Anew imprint page is inserted. This carries the name of the Jaipur “publishers” and the current year as the year of publication. The book is rebound with the original hard cover or a new (and crude) hard cover and wrapped in a newly designed dust-jacket which carries a new title in place of the original. The altered title, the newly-designed jacket and the new year of publication is obviously meant to mislead buyers into believing that the book is a new title from an already published author.
Monteiro is highly indignant because his Jaipur experience is in keeping with the way many publishers treat authors. Publishers can deceive authors in other ways too: by giving a lower figure of books printed, by not submitting the sales figures and royalties when due.
While Monteiro was reluctant to give me some details in view of the legal action that he has initiated, he was willing to say enough to make his fellow-authors move to safeguard their rights and fight against piracy in publishing.
(By John B. Monteiro)
I filed a criminal case against the Jaipur pirate-publisher in the Presidency Magistrate’s Court at Ballard Estate, Bombay. The court issued countless summons to the Jaipur “publisher” which came back un-served. Apparently the summons-server was bribed into noting that the accused was not found at the given address. My lawyer, now retired Justice Michael Saldanha, was then an upcoming, promising lawyer practising in Bombay. Though he had to go to the court on the scheduled dates several times over, in the end he did not charge a penny for filing the case and the court attendance. St. Aloysius College, Mangalore is the common factor