|
WILL 2006 SEE THE INDIA STUNG TO ACTION?
By RAJINDER PURI
Will India find next year better or worse? What needs watching is not
the economy. Thanks to Indian ingenuity, perhaps even crookedness, the
economy has suarvived, even thrived, despite perverse successive
governments. What has collapsed is the governance. That has rendered
Indian democracy little short of farce.
The pretence of having democracy wears thin when the rule of law has
all but vanished, when judges themselves complain that corruption has
polluted courts of law. All this when fortuitous circumstance, global
and domestic, offers real hope of great economic progress. So, will
the state of governance and democracy in 2006 propel or impede Indian
progress?
A succession of recent events reinforced the public's worst fears
about India's politicians. Three such events damned the reputation of
Parliament itself. First, there was the sting operation that captured
on camera MPs accepting bribes to put questions in the House. Never
mind how severe the punishment meted out to the erring legislators,
the damage in terms of public perception has left an indelible mark.
People no longer need rumour to convince them about corruption in
politics. They have seen it with their own eyes on TV. They now know
that most, if not all, politicians are corrupt. An unfair conclusion?
Perhaps. The important thing is that this is what people believe.
Quick on the heels of the cash-for-questions scam was another sting
operation that targeted MPs. It captured some of them on camera
accepting cuts from the money they sanctioned for projects under the
Local Area Development Scheme.
Several politicians questioned why the scheme should be criticized due
to its misuse by a few. It will take more time and harder knocks
before our honourable MPs get around to focusing on the more
fundamental question: Why should those elected to make and protect
laws be empowered to spend official funds for development work? That
should be strictly under purview of the executive, whether at the
national, state or local levels.
The mere fact that legislators have encroached in executive
functioning exposes the gross distortions that have crept into our
system. The final blow to Parliament came when two MPs, with other
criminal cases pending against them, provided false information to a
foreign embassy for obtaining visas. This created international
embarrassment.
An earlier sting operation was telecast to show innumerable local
officials accepting bribes. The government itself was impelled to move
in court against 90 of them. Another ongoing crisis regarding
buildings illegally erected escalated after the court ordered their
demolition. This has exposed the rotten state of governance inflicted
on citizens for five decades. The nation is caught in a dilemma.
To demolish some and spare others equally guilty violates a
fundamental principle of justice of providing equality under law. But
if all the guilty are to be punished almost whole cities would have to
be demolished. Over five decades of permissive sanction of law
violation have wrecked the system.
The beneficiaries of the original corruption that connived at illegal
construction are in many cases dead and gone. With vengeance the piled
up crimes against the system are now confronting the nation.
Critics have questioned the morality of sting operations carried out
by journalists. At the micro level there is much to question this
brand of journalism. The motives of the journalists may be
questionable. The degree of entrapment practiced on the victims to
fulfill a preconceived script raises serious questions about the
extent of real guilt of those caught on camera.
For instance, in the earlier Tehelka sting operation there were
serious lapses that made the exercise spurious. Out of 100 hours of
tape only select portions suiting the political agenda of the
journalists or their unseen mentors were shown. One Tehelka reporter
involved in the sting, Mathew Samuel, said there were tapes
implicating L K Advani, then home minister, for having received
kickbacks in the Rs 1,300 crore Indo- Israeli deal to provide border
fencing and communication systems.
Immediately the Tehelka chief contradicted him and cabled the home
minister giving assurance there would be no release of any such tape.
So, which Tehelka activist spoke the truth? Why couldn't all the 100
hours of tape be made available to the public? The less said about the
commission of inquiry that went into the matter the better.
There was deliberate effort to persuade people on camera to take
names, and if names were taken, to treat such hearsay as evidence.
Thus two of those interviewed on tape, R. K. Gupta and R. K. Jain,
volunteered imprecatory information to their questioners.
Aniruddha Bahal, a senior operative in the sting operations later told
the press: "Jain and Gupta talked to Mathew first. Then they
replicated these things which are on tape to me. Jain cooked up
something while talking to Samuel, then he was trying to recook the
story for me." What was he need to replicate a story? Or was it simply
rehearsal before going on camera?
When R. K. Jain was threatened for defamation by Yashwant Sinha for
remarks made on camera, he quickly apologized and admitted he had
lied! Was it mere coincidence that the two major victims of the
Tehelka episode were at that time the main rivals of L. K. Advani,
then home minister? Fernandes was the high-powered NDA coalition chief
and Bangaru Laxman was the first Dalit president of the BJP.
The recent sting operation implicating the cash-for questions by MPs
was also masterminded by Aniruddha Bahal. Learning from experience
perhaps, this time there was a lesser degree of entrapment. Although
one of the MPs did at first say that there was no need to make
payment. Should his level of guilt be equated with the others who
considered cash-forquestions to be their right? It is for Parliament
to consider this.
Spurred on by the power of camera and the impact of TV, the police
exposed their grotesque perception of what makes good democracy. A
lady officer in Meerut actually invited TV channels to capture on
camera her colleagues and herself visiting a park that was a
rendezvous for young couples. The police slapped and beat up
unsuspecting and innocent young couples.
The cops actually thought they were doing a great job that deserved
exposure on national TV! They administered their version of quick
justice. If this is how the police perceive their role as guardians of
law, what kind of democracy do we have? TV also reported several other
cases of police bestiality as they tortured and thrashed victims who
they thought were guilty.
In one case the police thrashed one of their own colleagues and
harassed his school going children! Irate politicians say there should
be sting operations against media too.
All strength to them! There must be plenty of corruption in the media.
Much of what the media does merits serious questioning. But all this
is at the micro level. We may deify or damn what individual
politicians, officials or media persons may do. It is the macro effect
that deserves consideration.
If all the thieves in society fall out and start demolishing each
other for motives entirely unworthy, it is nonetheless good. An
unintended cleansing process would have begun. Public cynicism
generated by such exposures could damage the system. That would be
even more welcome. The system needs some destruction before it will be
repaired.
As the year ends, the destruction seems to have begun. If the human
instinct for survival asserts itself, those who sit at the commanding
heights of society will wake up and undertake serious systemic reform.
To accelerate the process just one catalytic event is required.
The final Supreme Court judgment on the unconstitutional dissolution
of the Bihar assembly should be delivered early next year. It could be
the necessary catalyst. Or it could be new revelations in the Volcker
probe. 2006 may well be the year in which India starts to reform
itself.
|
|
EXCLUSIVE STORY
