NEW DELHI: HDFC chairman Deepak Parekh got the Modi government's hackles up when he said on Thursday that nothing had changed on the ground in the last nine months.

Regardless of whether things have changed or not 'on the ground', things appear to have changed at the top. Most businessmen that TOI correspondents have spoken to over the past few months – including a few who do not necessarily agree with everything that the government has done – say there's been a conscious effort to curb corruption, at least in the upper reaches of government .

"I can speak of at least the economic ministries, and I've heard this about defence too — ministers and top bureaucrats don't ask for anything when you go to meet them. There isn't even a hint of any expectation of an under-the-table quid pro quo," a prominent businessman told this paper recently during an informal chat.

"There's no longer a sense that it'll cost you to get a favourable hearing in government. Many of the senior ministers, starting from the finance minister, are people of integrity," another top industrialist told TOI, before adding with a laugh, "And some who might be tempted to stray from the straight and narrow are s*** scared of the Prime Minister."

READ ALSO: No change on ground on ease of doing business, HDFC's Deepak Parekh says

Day after Deepak Parekh fire, Jaitley defends govt

A top banker, while acknowledging that no significant proposals were coming to his investment committee had an interesting theory on one of the possible reasons for the empty pipeline: 'Operation Clean-Up', he said, may have actually created a different kind of uncertainty for business. "For years, businessmen knew how to get things done in government. Suddenly, they find the game has changed; the old ways of doing business no longer work. Ideas and proposals are being considered on merit. I can't say what'll happen tomorrow, but as things stand, there seems to be greater transparency." (He said the other reasons for lack of new investments included uncertainty on land and labour reforms; industry was wary of committing large funds on the basis of executive ordinances instead of legislation passed by Parliament).

Almost from the early days of the Modi government, it was clear that middlemen and lobbyists would no longer enjoy the unfettered access of the past. They found it more difficult to gain entry to key government offices or to roam the corridors at will. In fact, soon after taking charge, ministers such as Piyush Goyal and Dharmendra Pradhan publicly spoke of keeping middlemen out.

In the finance ministry, for instance, there were a few corporate affairs executives who would enter North Block around 11 am and spend the entire day sitting with low-ranking babus or chatting up peons to check on the status of various proposals. These people are no longer in evidence.

Similarly, a prominent businessman who had a regular routine for meeting ministers and senior bureaucrats in the previous administration seems to have cut down on his travel to the capital.

Even bosses of public sector organisations, including banks, were more or less told that they should avoid visiting their administrative ministries unless they had been invited for a specific meeting, or "hang around" with flowers and bouquets. Several ministries have installed CCTVs to keep tabs on movements.

In the past, senior PSU officials were known to frequent ministries in order to raise their visibility, promote themselves, and push their own agendas with mantris and babus (including powerful private secretaries).

For years, PSUs, especially the cash-rich energy companies, would provide vehicles to junior-level babus to gain access. Soon after he took over, Pradhan made it clear that this practice had to stop and if cars had to be provided, they should come from the ministry.

In the finance ministry, thanks to the arrest of former Syndicate Bank CMD SK Jain, the entire appointment process has been revamped and moneybags who often pushed appointments, are no longer as active.

The message to bureaucrats is also clear: Don't push vested interests. At least two secretaries have lost their jobs on this count. Of course, one was transferred also for his flamboyant ways as his minister noticed that he would carry expensive pens and wear top-of-the line watches.

The crackdown on what is being widely described as 'corporate espionage' is only the latest – and most demonstrable measure – to end a long-entrenched culture of give-and-take in the capital. It's been one of New Delhi's worst-kept secrets that classified documents (both hard and soft copies) routinely find their way out of ministries and government departments – particularly the 'resource-based' ones such as oil, coal, power, telecom and defence — where decisions worth tens of thousands of crores are taken regularly.

These could relate to policy proposals that have the potential to benefit a certain industry or company, or details of huge government contracts/tenders to private or public sector corporations. In addition to directly benefiting corporates, such privileged, price-sensitive information can also be exploited for huge profits on stock, commodity, forex and money markets – 'insider trading' gives a few people with access to information that is not available in the public domain an unfair advantage over other investors/traders.

Such information is typically sought, and paid for, by business groups for competitive reasons, or by those looking to make a killing on the market.

The crackdown of the past three days appears to be aimed at sending out the message that there are limits to 'business-as-usual'. A secondary purpose could also be to counter the perception that the government is too close to business. A number of ministers have told this paper at various points of time that they've been told by the Prime Minister that there can be no soft-pedaling on corruption.

But how does this square with the huge amounts of money BJP spent on the Lok Sabha elections? Doesn't a lot of such money come from business? Isn't there an expectation of a quid pro quo in the form of government-bequeathed benefits to those who contribute? To these questions, the response of a senior minister was, "Just because someone has contributed doesn't mean we are indebted to them for life. Even in the US, political action committees (PACs and Super PACs) are funded by multi-billionaires. A businessman may back a party or a politician because he believes they are good for growth, which eventually means good for business."

The Supreme Court, too, has played a role in trying to clean up the system: Its order resulting in dismantling of the first-come first-served principle has brought about transparency in allocation of spectrum, coal and, soon, mining rights.

But it's not yet roses all the way. The same businessmen who spoke well of the cultural change at the top said they would prefer to reserve judgement on whether this would lead to a systemic transformation. Said a well-known non-resident multi-billionaire, "Things haven't really changed on the ground where even corruption is concerned."

Everyone agrees it'll be a long haul. It'll be interesting to see if over the next few years India can dramatically improve its ranking on the various indices that measure corruption.

- With inputs from bureaus