Author: Balbir K. Punj
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: August 27, 2002
I have no quarrel with the media,
even though they selectively target the BJP in their 'investigative journalism'.
The good work the NDA government does, gets little projection, but its
failures are magnified. That is understandable. It is the price the party
pays for being in power in a democracy. The problem arises when 'facts'
are invented or twisted.
However, total lies are easy to
rubbish. But the real difficulties arise when 'investigative journalism'
stops short at half-truths. History proves that half-truths are more pernicious
than complete lies. It was so with the so-called 'petrol pump scam', in
which projections by certain sections of the media were backed by such
'facts'. Truth was skewed since many vital perspectives were ignored. It's
not difficult for a mischievous mind to state the 'facts' and still hide
the truth.
Here is an amusing anecdote from
the Cold War era. In a certain sports match between the United States and
the Soviet Union, the former defeated the latter. The US media reported
that the Americans had defeated the Soviets. The Soviet media contorted
the description like this: "We secured second position, while the US was
last but one." Certainly, there was nothing factually wrong about it, except
that it had turned the inference upside down.
I find the same applies to the so-called
'land scam' hitting the headlines these days involving the allotments of
prime land to BJP and RSS affiliates. I am not merely saying that in the
past the successive Congress governments at the Centre made an enormous
number of land allotments to various institutions - to some for ideological
reasons, and to several others, for far less honourable considerations.
But they made sure that any organisation, even remotely connected with
the RSS or the BJP - including the BJP itself - was excluded from such
allotments.
How come the BJP happens to be the
only major political party that does not have a building of its own in
Delhi? The Communist Party of India, with little political presence, has
its headquarters in the sprawling Ajoy Bhawan, close to the press area
at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. Its sibling, the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
owns a posh office building in the Gole Market area, a prime location in
the national capital. Did those hopping mad over the 'land scam' expect
the BJP-led coalition to continue with this policy of ideological untouchability
and political discrimination against the Sangh parivar?
The media reports on the price at
which land was offered by the NDA government vis-à-vis the market
price is yet one more example of the misuse of half-truths to distort the
reality. The report nowhere alludes to the fact that land allocations for
institutional purposes were always at concessional prices and never at
market value. Did the CPI, the CPI(M) or the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation pay
any market price? Did the string of newspaper organisations occupying the
prime land of India's 'Fleet Street' pay a market price?
It's another matter that some of
these media organisations which had got plots of land at Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg to run newspapers have since rented out virtually their entire building
space. In most of these buildings, publishing has been relegated to merely
a symbolic activity. The business of real estate has edged out the fourth
estate over the years.
To say that all these institutions,
which got land at concessional prices, are guilty will be again wrong.
The media reports failed to mention the rules of allotment under which
all land allotments over the last 50 years have been made to various institutions
by the Land Development Office - at a heavily subsidised price. This fact
makes a heaven and hell difference to the story. Every single allottee
in every institutional area of Delhi received land at government determined
price - not at the market price. Why was this key factor left out in the
news reports?
The media did not attack the system
of land allocation by the government at concessional prices per se. It
was made out that special favour was being shown to BJP and RSS affiliated
organisations. Did the media venture into, say, the Qutab Institutional
Area and find out how many of the organisations there are genuine, and
how many fake? How many have let out their premises, or are yet to conduct
any activity in any sphere? How many of them are simply personal fiefs.
Even though one may not agree with their ideology, the Vidya Bharati institutions
are running real schools. And where in the Constitution is it stated that
only institutions spewing Leftist and Islamic ideologies can be allotted
land, but those with roots in India should not be? Why should land coming
to organisations oriented towards an RSS ideology appear incongruous?
Another equally important question
is whether the government should allot land to institutions and political
parties at market rates. There can certainly be two views on that. But
if land is available to these institutions at the market rate only, most
of them would go without any representation in the national capital. Will
INTUC, a Congress-related organisation, the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, the
All India Women's Conference, UNI, PTI, the Press Club of India be able
to tender market prices for the respective lands they occupy?
The Congress is straining its vocal
chords on this issue. But the public has a right to know the whole truth.
To whom was the land now occupied by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation first
allotted? How did a place advertised as Congress headquarters become the
office of a private trust? How many government buildings are occupied by
the Congress and its front organisations? And how many bungalows and acres
of precious real estate have been dedicated to Congress leaders who have
departed from this world (Teen Murti House, Shanti Van, Safdarjung Road
bungalows, to name just a few)?
The media reports, unfortunately,
imply that allotting land to 'secularists' is right, but to the BJP is
wrong. If the Congress gets a prime location opposite Shastri Bhawan and
then instead lets a family-run private trust operate there, there seems
to be no problem. But allocating land to the BJP or the RSS becomes a challenge
to public interest. Now that the controversy has arisen, will all the beneficiaries
of concessional prices - political parties, cultural and media organisations
- agree to either vacate the premises allotted to them or pay market prices
before they raise a finger against the BJP and the RSS?
Or is it that any allotment of land
to the BJP and the RSS is wrong per se and any allotment to anyone else
are all right as long as they have the right political colour? Should treating
the BJP and the RSS at par with other cultural and political organisations
continue to be blasphemy? Why were the laws of allotments made since the
Fifties not revealed in the reports? Any answers?
(The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP)
