SAIL: Truth Seen, Action Missing – A Former Official Exposes the Vigilance Paradox

“कुछ तो लोग कहेंगे” (“Kuch to log kahenge,”) quipped the outgoing Chairman of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), attributing criticism to sections of the media, rather social media while addressing employees ahead of demitting office—prior to completing his full tenure.

Opinions may vary on his leadership style and tenure at the helm of the Maharatna PSU. However, questions surrounding the alleged ₹800 crore steel scam remain. Can it be categorically asserted that no such irregularities occurred during his tenure? Beyond social media narratives, voices of dissent regarding the functioning and approach of the previous regime under Amarendu Prakash continue to gain traction—even after his exit from the organisation.

For the second time, www.indianpsu.com has been approached by Mr. Bibhuti Narayan Majhi, former General Manager (Corporate Vigilance), SAIL (2012–2016), with an article authored by him. In this piece, he not only examines the vigilance mechanism but also raises deeper questions relating to Rajadharma and leadership within the organisation.

““‘कुछ तो लोग कहेंगे’ – लेकिन ‘जिन्हें सेल पर नाज़ था, वे आज कहाँ हैं??” (Jinhe SAIL par naaz tha kahan hain)

And this is our reply to the former Chairman’s rhetoric—facts don’t bend, and questions won’t fade!

As a responsible and neutral media platform, we are publishing the article in its entirety, exactly as received, in the interest of transparency and informed public discourse.

Recent narratives surrounding Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)—ranging from alleged irregularities in its marketing setup to a growing perception that vigilance has lost direction—suggest, based on information available in the public domain, the emergence of a deeper institutional and moral paradox. SAIL does not lack well-established rules, structures, or oversight. What it appears to lack is decisive ethical will grounded in discernment (discriminative wisdom).

Irregularities are often seen, sensed, and even recorded—yet intervention hesitates. The dilemma is not ignorance, but the erosion of the capacity to distinguish between what is right and what is convenient. In Vedantic terms, this is not a failure of jnana (knowledge), but of discernment and anuṣṭhana—the ability to discern rightly and act accordingly. In this context, an ancient wisdom from the Ramayana becomes strikingly relevant:

“सुलभाः पुरुषा राजन् सततं प्रियवादिनः । अप्रियस्य तु पथ्यस्य वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः ॥”

“Those who speak what is pleasing are always easy to find. But those who speak what is truthful, corrective, and beneficial—though unpleasant—are rare; rarer still are those willing to listen.”

When vigilance prefers comfort over candour and conformity over correctness, it ceases to be a guardian of integrity and becomes a participant in quiet decline. The issue is not merely procedural—it is ethical, reflecting a gradual erosion of institutional discernment.

When Systems Betray Their Purpose

The alleged misuse of the “Project Sales” mechanism—originally meant to support genuine infrastructure—points to distortion from within. Such patterns require institutional approval, repetition without correction, and discretion without restraint. This is not aberration—it is institutionalised deviation. When systems serve outcomes rather than principles, adharma becomes procedural. The consequences are evident:

 Market distortion
 Disadvantage to legitimate stakeholders
 A visible pattern of misuse
 The silencing of the honest by entrenched interests

Yet corrective vigilance remains absent. “ज्ञात्वा च न करोति”—to know and yet not act is itself a lapse.

From Vigilance to Formality

Vigilance, in its true spirit, is intended to be proactive, preventive, corrective, and above all, independent. It is meant to serve as the moral and administrative conscience of an institution, holding the keel of the organization steady and on track. For this the Department officials have to anticipate risks, address deviations, and uphold integrity without fear or favour.

Yet, over time, these vital functions risks degenerating into something far more superficial—procedural rather than purposeful, defensive rather than decisive, and symbolic rather than substantive. This reflects a deeper malaise—institutional complacency. Rules exist but are skillfully navigated through rather than sincerely followed. Processes remain but are diluted; awareness is present but not internalised.

What emerges is not the absence of vigilance, but its dilution. In Vedantic terms, it becomes nama-rupa without tattva—form without essence. The structure survives, but the spirit recedes.
Vigilance thus risks becoming an institutional ritual—performed and recorded, but rarely enforced in its true intent. Institutions do not collapse abruptly; they hollow out silently.

The Quiet Erosion of Vigilance

Vigilance demands firmness, independence, and moral courage. While institutional safeguards exist in principle, their erosion over time has weakened confidence. Sincere vigilance officials have, in many instances, faced adverse consequences—punitive postings, career setbacks, or institutional indifference. Legitimate grievances often remain unaddressed. In such an evironment, the assurance meant to empower vigilance weakens. Gradually, individuals retreat into safety—becoming compliant observers rather than active custodians. Conformity finds acceptance; courage becomes exceptional.

The Whistleblower: Truth Without Protection

Every institution is tested by how it treats those who speak the truth. A recurring pattern emerges:

 Truth is articulated
 The system resists it
 External scrutiny validates it

This reflects institutional dissonance. Protection frameworks exist, yet the perception persists: speaking truth invites consequence, while silence ensures continuity. The system appears to fear exposure more than wrongdoing.

Rajadharma and Leadership Failure

In the Indian tradition, Rajadharma demands protection of the righteous, correction of the errant, and action without fear or favour. When institutions are perceived to overlook concerns, penalise truth-tellers, or remain silent, Rajadharma is not merely weakened—it is reversed. The message becomes clear: integrity is risky; conformity is rational.

The CVC and the Credibility Gap

At the apex, the Central Vigilance Commission carries a vital mandate. Yet a gap persists due to:

 Advisory authority without enforcement
 Dependence on internal inputs
 Limited visible assurance

In governance, unseen vigilance is often perceived as absent vigilance. Without visible moral authority, credibility weakens.

Preaching Vigilance, Practicing Ambiguity

During Vigilance Awareness Week, institutions promote ethics and integrity. Yet a fundamental question arises:

What moral authority exists to preach vigilance externally if truth struggles internally? When acaraṇa (conduct) contradicts upadesa (preaching), credibility collapses.

The Deeper Crisis: Loss of Discernment

The dilemma reflects a wider shift:

• Long-term integrity → short-term expediency

• Discernment → procedural convenience

• Dharma → outcome-driven justification

This is moha—distorted perception where decline appears normal.

Employees gradually shift from asking “What is right?” to “What is safe?”—from sreyas (higher good) to preyas (immediate comfort).

The result is subtle:Calculated silence, Intelligent conformity and Withdrawal of moral initiative. The system continues—but without its inner compass.

Beyond Awareness

No campaign can substitute for credibility. Real change requires: Alignment of word and action, Visible protection of integrity, Independent and assertive oversight. Awareness informs but example transforms.

Vigilance must evolve—from compliance to conscience. Until truth is protected, deviation corrected, and leadership embodies Dharma, vigilance will remain a formality in structure and a shadow in reality.

The Gita’s Reminder

“यद्यदाचरति श्रेष्ठस्तत्तदेवेतरो जनः । स यत्प्रमाणं कुरुते लोकस्तदनुवर्तते ॥”

Leadership defines the standard. The crisis, therefore, is not at the bottom—it is at the top.

Conclusion: The Burden of Leadership

The crisis confronting SAIL is not of systems, but of conscience. Institutions erode not merely when rules are broken, but when wrongdoing is seen and allowed to persist. Decay begins with silence. The path to restoration is clear:

Truth must be made safe. Deviation must be made perilous.

This requires not vigilance in form, but discernment in judgment and Dharma in action. Without this, vigilance remains a hollow edifice—structure without spirit, process without purpose.

And when an institution loses moral authority, it does not merely lose trust—it begins, quietly, to lose itself.

[The writer is a former General Manager, Steel Authority of India Limited and writes on spirituality and ethics.]

The questions are on record—the answers, still awaited. And one should remember that – Silence is not a Response – Rather is a Signal!

We Report – You Decide…