EDITORIAL
NOT BY STALLING
PARLIMENT
In the wake of Tehleka
dynamites leading to acrimonious scenes in the Parliament
for last seven days, vote-on-account has been passed. How
is this to be interpreted? The Parliament has seen some
worst scenes of uproar and acrimony during the BJP
Government. Rushing to the well of the house, yelling and
raising slogans of all shades, hurling microphones and
even coming to scuffles are some of the things that have
been witnessed. All this has lowered the status and
prestige of the highest law making institution in the
country. Parliamentarians who should have been a model
for the entire nation have become buffoons and charlatans
caring not a tuppence for the people who have returned
them to their prestigious seats. How should this be
explained? Is it lacking of education, lack of
responsibility and lack of any vision for the future of
this nation? Gone are the days when the representatives
of the people laid a glorious example of discipline,
patriotism and dedication to the nation’s cause. It
was under that class of spirit that India could achieve
some marvels of scientific, technological, agrarian and
economic development. But alas the present generation of
parliamentarians seems to be ignorant of our past and
unmindful of the future. Unfortunately the largest
opposition party, namely the Congress has shown much less
wisdom and tact in behaving while sitting on opposition
benches. It has forgotten its past role so well knit into
the history of modern India. Its only intention while in
opposition is to topple the BJP Government and grab
power. This is not the political philosophy that is going
to sustain the party. Congress should have behaved much
more seriously and with a deep sense of responsibility.
In this rather
disappointing scenario, perhaps the wisest and very sane
word has come from the Prime Minister himself. He has
asked his party parliamentarians to go back to the people
and tell them the whole truth about Tehelka revelations.
It is the people who must know the facts and it is the
people who have the last word. This is the right type of
statesmanship and the country should be thankful to the
Prime Minister for his upright and honest approach to the
problem now facing the government.
Our parliamentarians have
to understand that the country is passing through a
critical stage. Our enemies have mobilized all vicious
forces and propaganda against us. Their aim is to
destabilise India because they are afraid of the
democratic, secular and pluralistic dispensation to which
this country is wedded. The opposition and more
particularly the Congress party should understand that it
is they who have laid a foundation for secular democratic
dispensation despite the fact that India was partitioned
on the basis of two-nation theory. The Prime Minister has
asked a very pertinent question. He asked whether the
opposition thinks that stalling the Parliament can change
the Government? If the opposition thinks in that way,
then it is behaving very unrealistically. By stalling the
Parliament, the opposition is only wasting the resources
of the nation. It is putting an obstruction in
nation’s move forward. It is sending a message to
the nation that it has only the nuisance value and not
real and constructive role to play. We do not mean to say
that there are no sane elements among the opposition. But
unfortunately it is not behaving in a responsible manner.
What it wants is to get power through whatever means it
can. That cannot happen in any case. The opposition has
always tried to magnify even the smallest lapse on the
part of the ruling party. Apart from this, hooliganism is
the method it has been using. If there is a scandal of
corruption, the Government has immediately moved and
moved in the right direction. The Defence Minister has
been relieved of his responsibility. Some army senior
officers have been suspended and court of inquiry has
been set up. The case is being investigated through
authorised agencies. There have been scams in the past
and with many Governments. But the right method of
dealing with these is precisely the one adopted by the
Government of Atal Behari Vajpayee. Where then does the
necessity of creating scenes in the parliament house
rise? It is hoped that the opposition will look beyond
self-aggrandisement and impose severe restrictions on
wayward behaviour while conducting official business. It
has to realise that the ultimate power rests with the
people and people do very well understand how it behaves.
The unfortunate thing with the Congress is that it is not
as yet reconciled to sitting in opposition when it must
and behaving as responsible opposition when it must.
HURRIYAT WANTS TO TALK
The Hurriyat chief Prof.
Abdul Ghani Bhat says his organisation wants to talk to
New Delhi. This is what they have been saying for a long
time. But does he mean to talk in changed circumstances
and with changed political landscape? Normally that is
what a common man will understand from his more recent
statement. Hurriyat wants to talk to the militant
leadership in Pakistan and then come back and talk to the
Indian Government. In a recent statement, the Home
Minister categorically ruled out the role of a mediator
between India and Pakistan. The two countries have been
talking without a mediator during past half a century. It
is a different thing whether they have been able to
resolve their bilateral issues fully or partially. A
small group of people in Kashmir with no legitimised
mandate from the people should not aspire to become the
mediator between two sovereign states even if the subject
matter pertains to a particular region. The Hurriyat has
come into being as a known-anti India dissenting element.
When the antecedents of a party are fully known, it
cannot expect to win the trust of the Government of India
to give it the legitimacy of a mediator. It is standing
with an eye-ball to eye-ball stance in the face of New
Delhi and one has no difficulty in anticipating what it
will talk to the militant leadership in a country which
has been behaving nothing short of a hostile country. The
Hurriyat leader is on the horns of dilemma. It has to
take a clear line before it embarks on any serious talk
with the militant leadership. The latter is committed to
Islamic fundamentalist ideology that is intolerant of
other faiths and religions. It is opposed to secularism
and western type of democracy. It spurns the western type
of constitution and believes in evolving the sharia law
as the basis of a constitution for a theocratic Kashmir.
These are some fundamental issues, which the Hurriyat
must be clear about. The Hurriyat has never made its
position clear on these issues to the Kashmiri people. It
does not say a word whether it wants a secular state or a
theocratic Islamic Kashmir. If it is not in favour of
oppressing the non-Muslim minorities in Kashmir by the
token of Kashmiriyat, it must define whether it will draw
an agreement with the militant leadership to that effect.
We are told that some of the Hindus and Sikh in
Talibanised Afghanistan are allowed to live there but
with clear marks of distinction. They have to wear a
particular coloured patch of cloth to distinguish them
from the faithful. Are the Hurriyat leaders in favour of
imposing this type of discriminatory mark in the case of
the non-Muslim Kashmiris? We hope the Hurriyat leadership
will try to be serious and more responsible. So far its
policy has been just giving calls for hartals. In
particular, it must re-assess its policy in the light of
the recent statement of the UN Secretary General who said
that Lahore Declaration forms the basis for Indo-Pak
talks. Hurriyat should re-adjust its stance to this
thinking of the international community.
|
Chrar:
Operation Devastation-IV
Unnecessary,
irrelevant, fruitless Abdullah-Indira
accord
From B L
Kak
The
1975 accord between Sheikh Abdullah and
Mrs Indira Gandhi may suit certain
elements in Jammu and Kashmir and New
Delhi. But it has not been painted in
bright colours in the book-Military
Operation in Kashmir: Insurgency at
Chrar-e-Sharief. Syed Mir
Qasim, the then Chief Minister,
facilitated, at the behest of the then
Prime Minister of India, the way for what
the book has described as "an
unnecessary, irrelevant and
fruitless" accord between Sheikh
Abdullah and Mrs Gandhi.
According
to the book, while the people were
generally keen to have a "voluntary
association" with the Indian
Government, what Sheikh Abdullah had
demanded was merely an assurance for free
elections "so that nobody from SM
Abdullah to the lower cadre worker
required any other guarantee". Why,
then, was the need for these parleys.
What was need for an accord?
Raising
these questions, GN Gauhar and Shahwar
Gowhar have remarked that the people in
Kashmir were puzzled at this "unique
political gimmick". According to
them, the Kashmiris learnt that Mrs
Gandhi had a plan to get her sycophants
in the State Congress politically imposed
under the mandate of Sheikh Abdullah;
then alone she could allow the
Sheikh’s associates to share power.
Subsequent developments, the book says,
proved the Kashmiris’ assessment
correct.
In
February 1975, Sheikh Abdullah took over
as Chief Minister of Kashmir. This, the
book has recalled, evoked a mixed
reaction in Chrar. The ‘Babas’
of Chrar, as a rule, disapproved this
development for two reasons. First, they
had an old aversion against the Sheikh,
and, second, Mr Abdul Quyoom was
virtually consigned to history, leaving
his people annoyed. The
‘non’Babas’ liked the
change for only one reason-it deprived
their rivals of an access to power.
Gauhar and
Gowhar have criticised Sheikh Abdullah
for his dictatorial role in early 1950s.
The people of Kashmir, they have
emphasised in the book, had immediately
after 1951 when a selected Constituent
Assembly was imposed upon them, reacted
with silent contempt against this
imposition and developed belief that they
will never be allowed to exercise their
right of franchise in India.
The
people of Kashmir (an obvious reference
to the local Muslims) had come to know
the details of how Muslims in Jammu "were
massacred and forced to migrate to
Pakistan when Muslims in Kashmir
protected Hindu families", Gauhar
and Gowhar say and add: "They had
found out that all that was said about
the tribal Pathans was heavily
exaggerated. They had seen that, in spite
of the high secular claims made by India,
communal riot was daily occurrence there.
Though to them Sheikh Abdullah was the
main agency through whom the process of
deceit was initiated, implemented and
worked out, the manner in which he
pleaded in his speeches in the court of
the people from the middle of 1952
onwards, and his dramatic fall, made
people exploit the situation to express
their anger and anguish against
India".
According
to Gauhar and Gowhar, the cowed-down
pro-Pakistan elements took advantage of
the situation, led this upsurge which
made anti-India struggle "a
permanent feature of Kashmir
politics" irrespective of the fact
that after 22 years of
‘wandering’ the Sheikh again,
in 1975, started harping the tune of
irrevocability of Kashmir’s
accession to India. Gauhar and Gowhar
have recorded in the book: Constitutional
advisors of Sheikh Abdullah had made him
believe that the Indian Government could
not dismiss or arrest him.
"It
is a fact", the book asserts,
"that he (the Sheikh) had lost
majority in the Cabinet of five
Ministers, including himself, and so he
has asked one Minister, Mr SL Saraf, to
resign on the basis of corruption
charges. The legislature party was behind
him. All 75 members of the Constituent
Assembly were chosen by him. Not a single
member was elected. Hence, none could
dare to challenge his authority in his
presence. Therefore, the so-called
democratic leader of the Third World, Mr
Nehru, resorted to the naked rape of
values. Mr Abdullah was thus caught
unprepared…"
Bakshi
Ghulam Mohammed who succeeded Sheikh
Abdullah as the J&K Premier did not
make Chrar a political stage, but he did
"reserve" the Chrar-e-Sharief
constituency for his cousin, Bakshi Abdur
Rashid. In 1957, another chapter in the
farce of elections was played with the
Kashmiris, the book says and adds that
Bakshi Rashid was again returned
‘unopposed’ from the Chrar
constituency to the first-ever so-called
Legislative Assembly.
Stating
that the people of J&K had no faith
whatsoever in these elections and
boycotted them, Gauhar and Gowhar have
regretted: "There was no opposition
party nor did the Indian Opposition take
any interest in encouraging democratic
traditions in Kashmir". Bakshi
Ghulam Mohammed has come under fierce
attack in the book for nepotism which, to
quote the book, made his family
"amass wealth".
And the
sensational charge against the former
Premier in the book: "Bakshi, guided
by his self-interest, is responsible for
the fact that Kashmir till date continues
to be with India". Had he not sided
with India in 1953, the Sheikh, according
to Gauhar and Gowhar, would have created
such a situation for Jawaharlal Nehru,
which would have forced him to settle
this dispute strictly according to his
commitments.
The book
laments: But, in the end of 1963, the
same Indian leadership humiliated Bakshi
Ghulam Mohammed. Equally sensational is
the finding of Gauhar and Gowhar: The GM
Sadiq Government which owed its existence
to the Holy relic agitation, and to the
manoeuvring of the late Maulana Mohammed
Masoodi, acted in a manner which sent in
the Sheikh, after his release in 1964, to
the wilderness and then again to the den
of prison. But both the Sadiq camp and
the Sheikh’s colleagues, the book
reveals, had a common interest in
eliminating Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed from
any and every office he held as a
political, social worker, reformer or as
a patron or office-bearer of some
charitable trust.
(To be continued)
|
 |
Indian
cricket thinktank lacks wisdom
By
Rajesh Dhar
By the
time you read this article, the third and
final cricket test between India and
Australia will be over. After the
fascinating victory in the Kolkata test
where Laxman played a charismatic knock
of 281, the morale of the Indian players
will be Sky high. Both the teams are
having an even chance of winning the
Chennai test and I have nothing to do
with winning or losing. While the Aussies
may have left their defeat at Eden park
miles behind them, the Indian thinktank
do not appear to be on the same level of
thinking. I mean the selection pattern,
the management policies and the decision
making clearly indicates that our cricket
thinktank lacks wisdom.
Here what
I am concerned with is that the Indians
are in the game with just one seam bowler
in Zaheer Khan and selectors' collective
wisdom in throwing in three new faces
(Kulkarni, Bahutule, Dighe) -- all from
the same state - makes me wonder how and
why the contenders were ignored in the
first place.
We have it
on record that both Sameer Dighe and
Nilesh Kulkarni were not picked for West
Zone Duleep Trophy this year. And
Kulkarni has just one Ranji game to his
credit in this season. Bahutule had a
hatrick in Duleep Trophy which didn't set
the Ganges on fire.
Orissa
swing bowler Debashish Mohanty was left
out of the first eleven after he was
summoned to join the fourteen member
party. See the height of things.
The
national selectors kept two things in
mind. On one hand they wanted to
"please" Mohanty for his all
ten wickets haul in the recently
concluded Duleep trophy game and for that
matter picked him to get his share of
money for his performance. And on the
other hand, they wanted to make the
Mumbai coach happy who was feeling
anguish and annoyance and complaining
about the selectors giving raw deal to
his players like Kulkarni, Bahutule and
Dighe. The Indian cricket selectors are
so humble, gentle and humane that they
can hardly bear anybody's annoyance.
Before the
start of the three series, our national
selectors summoned (specially) Narinder
Hirwani and Sairaj Bahutule to attend the
conditioning camp for probables in order
to strengthen the spin department. While
Hirwani has been among the reserves in
all the three matches, Bahutule for above
mentioned reason has got a chance in the
final test.
Our
cricketing experts picked Hirwani to
represent the country at the highest
level at the time when he didn't deserve
to play at domestic level as well because
of his physical condition. And he was
just picked in the party to watch players
in action from stands and share money by
being in fourteen member squad.
Delhi
medium pace bowler Ashish Nehra's
inclusion and omission without playing a
single game was also surprising. Nehra
was a special replacement for injured
Javagal Srinath so, a first choice in the
fourteen member squad but a second choice
in playing eleven. Prasad for some
unknown reason was preferred, forgetting
about Nehra's splended show with the ball
in the tour game against the same
Australians at Nagpur somedays back.
On the
other hand Venkatapathy Raju was picked
in the second test not for his previous
records but for some other reasons: To
have humour in the dressing room because
this time Jadeja is not present with his
earthy jokes and pranks of Vinod Kambli
are also lacking in the dressing room. So
somebody who can make the people laugh is
needed in the dressing room and
"muscles" nick name for Raju
fits the bill.
If you
don't know how a bowler bowls, a bater
bats or a fielder catches you do not
deserve to be a selector, and, if you are
fully knowledgeable in all the
departments of the game then you ought to
think about winning a match win rather
than quota system applied and consider
national interests and not the regional
ones.
Now, what
about Prince of Kolkata (Saurav Ganguly)?
This Maharaja wanted to represent Board
Presidents XI to play a tour game at
Kotla in order to have a practice after
his failure in the first test, so he
requested the BCCI and was made to play.
It is beyond my comprehension as to what
was the fun to play this game when he was
opting out of the games in domestic
cricket. Moreover, during this game he
was staying in one of the Palatial hotels
at Delhi when the other members of the
squad were, staying at some ordinary
hotel hardly caring for team meetings and
game plans. And it was shocking to see
him out of the field for the entire last
day of the match and shell shocking not
to see anybody from the Board of Control
for Cricket in India (BCCI) asking him
about the matter. In India every player
is at liberty and captain is the king. A
captain should lead from the front, but,
unfortunately, Ganguly at present is not
having the time to concentrate and apply
himself and show youngsters the right
path.
Now, in
the final test, Ganguly tried to lead
from the front by sharing new ball with
Zaheer Khan, but Prince of Kolkata
perhaps does not know that opening the
bowling with a brand new ball is not
everybody's cup of tea and it is not as
easy as going for a joy-ride with film
actress Nagma or signing autographs for
little girls.
John
Wright, the Indian coach too is
complaining about Ganguly's egoistic
approach which is not a healthy sign for
team management.
|
|
Someone,
please turn the page
By M J Akbar
The first time I
saw George Fernandes collecting money was in
1978. He was union minister of Industries in
Morarji Desai's post-Emergency government, not as
glamorous a portfolio as defence, but sufficient
to keep a politician in good health. George
Fernandes wore the same khaddar Kurta pyjama that
he affects today, this much is unchanged George
Fernandes was collecting money in Chikmagalur,
and dyllic small town perched on purple
cloud-swept hills of Karnataka, surrounded by
coffee plantations and suddenly thrown into the
spotlight when Mrs Indira Gandhi decided to
re-enter the Lok Sabha from the constituency
named after this town. The sun had set, and the
electricity was nothing more than an occasional
flicker of dull yellow points trying to leave an
impact on the haze. Large gas lamps, incandescent
white, were more effective. George Fernandes held
the front of his long kurta in his hands and went
around the irregular semi-circle in which the
crowd had assembled asking for money. It came.
First, a little shyly. Someone put a rupee in
Georges fold. Another a coin of eight annas of
fifty paise; annas were still part of the
language then. George Fernandes was asking for
money from the people of Chikmagalur for the
Janata Party's election campaign against Indira
Gandhi. Perhaps the most he got from pans, but I
am feeling a bit helpless. The Tower of Honesty
has become the Leaning Tower of Paisa.
What was Jaya
Jaitly's explanation for taking the money,
recorded in transcripts? Poor thing, she only
wanted the money for party funds. Oh, It was much
clearer in her context that the two lakhs was
only a first meeting price; each future
engagement would cost as well. The only thing
that Jaya Jaitly offered her benefactors free was
her smile.
The asolyies.
Major General Murgal. Major General ! A man who
has commanded the Indian soldier, been
responsible for the lives and deaths of jawans,
who once held charge of quality assurance in
ordnance and therefore controlled the fate of
men. Serving generals. Where was Major General
Manjit Singh Ahluwalia when Kargil was happening?
Did he look at the bodies returning from the
front? Did his heart tremble with fear at the
sacrifice that he had stained with his greed?
What do they call treachery these days?
What does Major
General Murgai say after Jaya Jaitly has promised
to intervene with her ''Sahib'' at some future
point; ''You see, sometimes, as Madam has very
rightly brought out things are moving in right
direction.''
Since I do not
quite know whether to laugh or cry, I must point
out that Murgai's syntax is out of an MTV ad
Major General Six Gun Murgail you give money, I
give tender !
And Jaya Jaitly,
only for her party's sake, mind you, not her own,
tells the arms dealers :''I would only request
Sahib's office that somebody is not being
considered even.'' That is what they call putting
in a word for somebody''. And of course she must
dress up her corruption with third-rate piety:
'In the interest of the nation. So that we'll
ensure that they don't neglect you.''
Can we leave the
nation out of this, Madam?
The arms dealers
get a parting reassurance from her : ''You can
come anytime. Give me the details. Just give me a
call if there is no response''.
Anytime. Just
don't come empty-handed.
Or, as her
faithful middleman Surendra Sulekha put it :
''Packet is where?
Packet is where?
What better obituary could there be for Indian
democracy?
More, Who is the
fountainhead of Indian patriotism? Which
organisation has drowned Indian history with
selfless sacrifice? Who beats the loudest drum
for the Indian jawan? The RSS. Who wants to
Indianise everything. Including all religions?
The RSS. Well, they have certainly Indianised
corruption. R K Gupta a trustee of the RSS. He is
such an insider that he is known as the ''Super
Trustee''. When R K Gupta talks the RSS listens.
And collects. He said on tape that he expected to
earn commissions of around a hundred crore for
work done last year in defence deals. He knows
the price of everyone in Delhi, from a small
timer to Jaya Jaitly. He knows the value of
everyone too. ''Bangaru Laxman is a fool''. On
the other hand, the former BJP president could
use that as a character certificate.
We journalists
like to believe that we bring down governments
with our stories. This is not strictly true.
Politicians do not give a loss for journalism.
What shakes them is public anger. What destroys
them is ridicule. It is people who destroy
governments just as surely as they make them.
Mamata Banerjee had no option but to leave the
government, she-could not have faced the people
in an election in a few weeks. If she had not
done so. The same logic will apply to other
partners of the BJP.
The Government of
Atal Behari Vajpayee may continue a few hours
more, a few days more or a few months more thanks
to the vagaries of the system, but as a
functioning government it is dead. The people of
India have seen the truth of this government on
the news and made up their minds. They are livid,
and are waiting to punish anyone who is still
linked with this corruption. What the story could
not manage to do, some of the defenders of the
faith filled in when they tried to defend the
indefensible. There was Narendra Modi, for
instance, who attempted to twist Bangaru Laxman's
demand for dollars into a statement without a
context. According to Mr Modi, Mr Laxman was just
mentioning the word dollar, not asking for any.
Maybe Mr Laxman these days chants ''dollar''
instead of ''Om''; who knows ?
The Bharatiya
Janata Party will of course continue in business
''or as long as we live. But its claim to be only
party that respects honesty is dead. Finished. It
cannot call anyone corrupt anymore without
raising howls of laughter, and there is nothing
more chilling than such laughter. The party's
spokesman Mr Vijay Malhotra has discovered this
already. He only had to mention the fraud to
expose a major one. Thin-line journalism is money
unknown; It is inherently maveric and
unconventional. Tehelka did not set out to expose
any particular deal. It set out to capture, on
camera, a world full of ghosts and villains in
the shadows of the defence penumbra, waiting for
the ghosts to lead them on to such villains as
would be foolish enough to fall into their trap.
The ghosts of this particular world drink Blue
label Scotch and charge commissions, the villains
take money across the table. Old fashioned
corruption was brought home to you by
new-fashioned technology. It was the hidden
camera that gave this story its extraordinary
power. That is why the real impact was created
when the film was shown on Zee News. As a website
story it would have been only another allegation.
Print seems jaded. The Asian Age carried a
detailed exposure of how many hundreds of crores
of your money and mine were being handed over in
a fraud involving Mirage jets and Hawk aircraft.
Not a single word of these stories has been
denied by the defence minister or the defence
ministry. The system did not react. Facts have
become so jaded that it needed a bit of
pro-active fiction to wake up a ruling class that
is smug when it rules, and asleep when in
Opposition leaving one to wonder whether it is
bought out in other condition.
The camera
photographed, for the first time, the culture of
corruption. A fiction trapped the truth. Every
allegation made against every government was
personified by Jaya Jaitly and Bangaru Laxman and
those sordid, vain, boastful middlemen J&K.
Jain and R K Gupta. There was a splendid cast of
characters, generals, bureaucrats and fixers who
could not have been created if they were not the
living truth.
Corruption is a
strange animal; it invites revulsion as well as
laughter. Perhaps the second is necessary to
season the first. The objection to these
revelations must be recorded; how can the
president of a ruling party, the BJP, take only
one lakh of rupees. When P V Narasimha Rao was
accused to taking a bribe it was two crores in
two suitcases. Now that is a figure which is
relevant to stature. One lakh? Even municipal
corporators take more. One lakh is an insult,
even as an offer, in Delhi. The only rational
explanation is that the one lakh was a teaser, a
calling card a token for future happiness.
And Jaya Jaitly
was purchased for two lakhs. This is the lady who
has shrieked across television screens and
charged across front pages whenever anyone has
questioned her probity. This is the lady who, in
the company of her Sahib, has occupied the
pedestal of public purity to the accompaniment of
withering accusations against the corruption of
the Congress. This is the high priestless with a
regal disdain for lesser, grubby mortals. And
here she is on camera, selling, piecemeal, the
most sacred trust in government, the life and
safety of our defence personnel, for an opening
instalment of two lakhs of rupees. This was
enough to obtain the services of her ''Sahib'',
the preacher George Fernandes, tower of honesty.
I don't really want to indulge in bad any
individual was a five rupee note, but by the time
he had finished the coins had to be collected in
a borrowed bucket.
There was a touch
of contrived romance about it; but there was also
something genuine in it. This was the way the
Socialist George Fernandes, disciple of Ram
Manohar Lohia, inseparable friend of Madhu
Limaye, a hero of the trade union movement,
organised of the all-India railway strike , an
accused in the Baroda dynamic case (one of the
high points of national resistance during Indira
Gandhi's Emergency), victor from Muzaffarpur in
the historic elections of 1977 from behind the
bars of a prison (George was not released till
after the elections), scourge of multinationals
and the undisputed hero of a generation of young
Indians collected money for his political
battles, with a heart that was clean and a laugh
that was contagious.
The next time I
saw George Fernandes collecting money it was
still in the dark; it was the dark of a room in a
Delhi ministerial Bungalow depened by the grainy
shadows of a hidden camera and the murkiness of a
corrupt deal. George Fernandes was not on camera
perhaps something of that last youth still lurked
in his conscience. But the money was being
collected in his name, by his closest friend and
companion, Jaya Jaitly, who asserted help from
''Sahib'' in a defence contract in return for a
preliminary payment of two lakhs of rupees.
It was a sting of
substantial proportions. But more was lost than
Jaya Jaitly's face and George Fernandes
reputation.
There is a
compelling logic to this sting, organised by a
dotcom company, Tehelka, in order to survive arid
times. It needed a word honesty to invite a
chorus of laughter. To his credit, Mr Malhotra
joined the laughter instead of getting cross,
which a less astute politician might have done.
Something else has
also happened. The generation that gave us
freedom faced by the Sixties and died by the
Seventies. Their heirs may now also be considered
safely buried. These heirs once promised hope.
That is why the poor poured their coins and rupee
notes into George Fernandes' kurta on that night
in Chikmagalur. That hope is finished, swamped
and sucked into the bog of second-generation
greed.
Another chapter in
the history of modern India is over.
Someone, please
turn the page.
|
Avoiding
the real issue ''exposed''
By Anupam Mishra
The revelations
made by the net portal Tehelka.com have raised
several issues, none of which unfortunatelyare
being dealt with in the manner they should be.
The politicians are talking about the
journalistic ethics and the Lakhshman Rekha, the
legal experts are debating the acceptability of
the tapes as evidence in a court of law, the
accuseds are questioning the authenticity of the
tapes and calling them doctored and the
bureaucrats are privately furious over the manner
in which the 'silly politicians' are allowing the
'system' to be exposed and endangering
'everything the life is worth living for'. The
public, of course, is simply too shocked and hurt
to react.
However the most
interesting reaction has come from the government
itself through the Prime Minister who suspects a
conspiracy in the revelations (Daal Mein Kuch To
Kaala Hai) and through its regular and dependable
mouthpiece Pramod Mahajan who has the audacity to
declare that since no deal was actually struck no
wrongdoing on part of the government is made out.
As if the senior defence officials are being
suspended for floating rumours about the system !
The thickskinned
reactions are appalling ! A whole network of
corrupt deals in the defence sector has been
exposed involving the politicians, the
bureaucrats, the middlemen and the traders: a
nexus strong enough to endanger the safety of the
country itself, and all the Prime minister can
think of is a conspiracy against his government.
At this testing moment the statesman that he is
regarded as, the PM should have come out with an
assurance about the guilty not being spared no
matter how high and mighty they may be. After all
his own office is not above suspicion. An
acceptance of the filth in the system may have
still kept him personally untainted but all his
words and tone reflect is anger for those who are
responsible for the expose.
Surprisingly he
can see hidden hands and silent conspirators in
the exposure but is simply blind to now open
secrets and gloating swindlers who go on to
explain the murky world of defence deals in
shamelessly simple words with special emphasis on
their own deeds ( not forgetting to give credit
to their accomplices in the government wherever
it was due). Sadly he refuses to acknowledge that
Tehelka's editor Tejpal with barely ten lac
rupees at his disposal has exposed a serious
almost fatal flaw in the country's most vital
sector of defence. As Tejpal rightly points out
that what if it was not him but the ISI handling
the deal ? Come to think of it can anyone now
guarantee that foreign spy networks like ISI have
not already penetrated the system in the above
fashion ?
Let us accept the
fact that these are difficult times and to quote
a former Chief Justice of India, "no system
can be better than the social setup in which it
performs." Though he said it in the
reference of judiciary, political setup is
obviously no exception to this rule. The backers
of the government point out in private
discussions (yes, there still are private
discussions), that the defence deals are being
conducted in this fashion since the day we had a
country to defend, and it will go on no matter
who is in power. They argue that the removal of
Atal government will not remove the practice and
whoever will be in chair at the time of deals
worth several thousand crores passing through
will have to be someone very different to resist
the temptation. They insist that the major amount
is not for personal consumption and keeping a
political party running in India is a costly
affair .
Even if you
tolerate these arguments (you can't subscribe to
the sick logic, of course), one can tell them in
their own perverse logic that fine you have had
your run but now that you are caught leave the
scene, even if to bounce back after getting a
clean chit from the courts. Simply because
arresting a thief will not lead to putting an end
to all thefts we can not allow a thief caught in
the act to go scot free.
The PM wants the
opposition to make out a case before demanding
for his government's resignation. I wonder what
case is he really talking about. Doesn't he see
that his continuance in the government will now
be merely symbolic! Without a public acquittal in
the form of a fresh mandate he will be totally
devoid of the moral authority so necessary to
keep the diverse republic, or for that matter his
own coalition intact !! But displaying a
sensitivity as strong as Laloo's he simply sits
there fuming at the opposition, refusing and
accepting resignations of his colleagues and
possibly for the first time in his career too
numb to react with his much admired eloquence
nowhere in sight.
Regarding the
Prime Minister's Office (PMO) this is not the
first time that charges have been levelled
against it for interference and acting as a super
cabinet. Brijesh Mishra has been in the eye of a
storm not long back when Jain TV levelled serious
allegations against him. Also this is not the
first time that Mishra, Ranjan Bhattacharya, the
PM's foster son-in-law, and NK Singh who has come
in on a post retirement appointment, have been
criticised and accused on various issues.
Although the references made to the Defence
Secretary Yogendra Narain are a bit more shocking
as throughout his entire career, which saw him as
the Chief Secretary of UP and Secretary Surface
Transport at the centre, he has managed to stay
clear of controversies. Alas, he would go into
his retirement this year being remembered as Mr
one-and-a-half percent.
The 'expose' will
have some serious repercussions in the various
states. The states of UP and West Bengal will be
shortly going to assembly polls. In the context
of WB Mamta has got hold of a unique opportunity
of dumping the BJP on the election eve and see
her much cherished dream of Mahajot with Congress
taking shape, without being accused of betraying
the BJP-led government.. She can do it now taking
the high moral stand. With BJP's vote base in WB
strictly limited and with her tenure in the
central government as Railway minister totally
milked for all it was worth , she can now go back
for the final battle with the Communists to
achieve her ultimate goal.
In UP the scandal
may give a decisive blow to the by-election in
Haidargarh where the Chief Minister Rajnath Singh
is making an all out effort to clear the
impression that he is merely an organisation man
and not a public leader, as his all but one
trials at hustings till now have proved. Not that
he was short of problems in the coming polls with
some senior ministers in his cabinet hobnobbing
with the opposition to try and get him removed
from the scene which will put the CM's post up
again for the grabs.
In Bihar the issue
may provide a much needed respite for Laloo Yadav
who is presently facing one of the most serious
challenges to his governance from within his
party, with the rebels being egged on by the
Samata Party and Laloo's opponents in the centre.
Politics has its
own ways of levelling matters. Nearly twelve
years ago the Congress led by Rajiv Gandhi
squandered the great mandate on being charged
with receiving kickbacks in the Bofors gun deal.
It is another matter that so many years and seven
regimes later we are yet to confirm anything. Now
the self styled 'different' political people, the
BJP, and their not so different allies, stand
exposed and deflated on a deal that was never
there in the first place, with the Congress going
in for the kill. Not that Congressmen are much
experienced in the act as it is seldom that they
are on moral high ground vis-a-vis the issue of
corruption. INAV
|
|
| |
 |
|
