Author: Arvind Lavakare
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: March 24, 2001
Ex-defence minister Mulayam Singh
and ex-prime minister Chandra Shekhar owe pots of money to the defence
ministry for using the nation's aircraft for personal purposes. But nobody
has asked them to quit the Lok Sabha even though, mind you, neither has
seriously contested the offence in the ongoing court case.
The Lok Sabha member, Mohammad Shahabuddin
from Bihar, has three criminal cases registered against him, and his home
was found, the other day, stocked with guns and grenades. But nobody is
asking him to quit Parliament. Why, the jail server, Laloo Yadav, and his
charge-sheeted wife's government are holding their state police guilty
rather than Shahabuddin for the recent violence in Siwan.
In utter contrast, the entire Opposition
wants the NDA government to pack its bags just because of some videotapes
that are so hazy and ham-handed, so stammering and stuttering and out of
sync.
The tragedy is that our media, pretending
to be the nation's honorary watchdog, have fallen hook, line and sinker
for those third-quality tapes, without caring to ascertain whether they
are morphed or manipulated or both.
Look at the lie recorded in the
Tehelka notes (published in The Asian Age of March 14, 2001) regarding
their meeting with Jaya Jaitly, president of the Samata Party. Those notes
say that among those present for their discussion with Jaitly was member
of Parliament Srinivas Prasad. However, it now transpires that, on the
day of that meeting, Prasad was not in New Delhi but in Bangalore! That
falsehood or fabrication, call it what you will, is clear from Tehelka's
own transcript in which Jaitly says "Please send this to our minister,
Mr Srinivas Prasad." Now, if Prasad, minister of state for consumer affairs,
were indeed present at that meeting (as stated by Tehelka), Jaitly would
have said "Please give this to our minister..." and not "Please send this
to our minister..."
Further, there is absolutely nothing
in that Jaitly transcript to even hint at a quid pro quo. In fact, what
she is reported as saying is "Look, you mustn't treat anybody unfairly.
Give everybody a chance... if there is any unfair practice, we can step
in... You then take the best, which is at the best price." Where, then,
is the deal, signed, sealed and delivered? Where is the corruption? Only
in the minds of the Opposition and the gullible, sensationalising journalists.
Then there is the matter of Jaitly's
meeting taking place at the residence of the country's defence minister.
If that is such a horrendous act as has been made out, is it not equally
so for the PM or the home minister or any other minister to take decisions
on office files in the privacy of his/her home? Is it not also horrendous
then for Sonia Gandhi, leader of the Opposition and therefore enjoying
ministerial status, to discuss, with then US deputy secretary of state
Strobe Talbott, the nation's nuclear doctrine, J&K terrorism etc at
her residence instead of at her Lok Sabha office?
Now look at the treacherous "testimony"
against Bangaru Laxman, BJP president. Although it did not, once again,
prove any wrongdoing, it cast an incalculable damage on the man's reputation.
Consider that one sequence in the publicised Tehelka transcript that ran
as follows:
Tehelka: Rupees or dollars?
Laxman: Dollars. You can give in
dollars.
The above "quote" of Laxman was
given a eight-column headline in The Asian Age, but with the exclamation
mark (!) after "Dollars." The observant would have wondered why, if Laxman
had reportedly wanted dollars as offered by Tehelka, did he accept payment
in rupees? Why did Tehelka not explain to the public how it managed to
get away with rupee payment if, as they now want us to believe, Laxman
had opted for dollars?
The mystery lies in that exclamation
(!). What Laxman in all probability said was "Dollars??" with an exclamation
of shock in his tone, and "You can give dollars??" with another exclamatory
tone. But Tehelka must have just clipped away the exclamation marks in
its transcripts while the audio in its tapes was just too damned garbled
to reveal the exclamatory tone. Anyway, why has Tehelka not cared to tell
us whether they had or hadn't received the official BJP stamped receipt
for what they gave to Laxman?
Indeed, all it needs is logic and
patience to bore big holes in the Tehelka tapes and transcripts, the jumps
and the juxtapositions therein.
But lo! And behold. The Times of
India in its first editorial of March 22, 2001 says, "...the Opposition
may have lost a golden opportunity to turn the Tehelka aftermath to their
own advantage. Think of what a lawyer might have done with the explosive
evidence." Yes, even a freshly inducted criminal advocate would have exploded
the "evidence" --- in Tehelka's face.
Just see how the Tehelka blokes
said in the interview with The Indian Express published in the Mumbai edition
of March 18, 2001. In that interview, they did not deny that their apology
to the home minister regarding accepting a commission on a border-fencing
contract was because the tapes were not verified. Regarding the blatant
contradiction in First Global's statement that it owned just 3 per cent
of Tehelka's shareholding as against Tehelka's own statement that First
Global had a 14.5 per cent stake in it, the discrepancy was "explained"
as an event that would happen in the future!
The possibility that talk on the
tapes may well have been "cooked up" and "recooked" was not denied! Asked
about the possibility that there may be errors on the tapes, the reply
of Tehelka's second in command was "I don't know" (sic). When asked whether
they had verified every fact that had been given by Jain and Gupta and
others, Tehelka claimed, poor dear, that "only the context of the talk
was important, not exactly what they said"(sic). Such then is Tehelka's
credibility.
Yet, Aroon Purie, editor-in-chief
of India Today went gaga over Tehelka's work in the magazine's issue of
March 26, 2001. He wrote, "This is a proud moment for India's journalism;
and that too good old-fashioned, painstakingly investigative journalism."
Using modern, miniaturised video
recording equipment is considered illegal in many countries -- is that
"old fashioned"? Mounting a sting operation that is, in the USA, permitted
only to the FBI -- is that old fashioned? Gathering defamatory, but doubtful,
info on those you meet, and then recycling it without allowing the affected
ones to react -- is that journalism? Turning and twisting your data in
presentation --- is that journalism? The solitary way in which all that
is "old fashioned" is its violation of norms of natural justice and human
rights.
Worst of all, is it "a proud moment
for Indian journalism" when members of that so-called "noble" profession
don the garb of criminals to do their work? Yes, this is something that
nobody but nobody in our country seems to have realised till this is being
written.
By admittedly pretending to represent
a fictitious company during all their meetings with all of Jaitly Laxman
& Co., the Tehelka team laid itself wide open to the contemptible criminal
charge of violating Section 415 and Section 416 of our country's criminal
law called the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Those two sections are reproduced
below, word-by-word.
"415. Cheating. --- Whoever, by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely
to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property,
is said to "cheat."
Explanation: A dishonest concealment
of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
To enable a clearer understanding
of the crime that Tehelka could well be prosecuted for, the relevant portion
of Section 415 can be restated as "Whoever, by deceiving any person, induces
the person so deceived to do anything which he would not do if he were
not so deceived, and which act is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in mind or reputation, is said to "cheat."
The punishment for the offence under
Section 415 above is imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. (Section 417 of the
IPC)
"416. Cheating by personation. ---
A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to
be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another,
or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or
such person really is.
Explanation. --- The offence is
committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person."
In 1974, the Supreme Court held
that under Section 416, there must be evidence to show that the person
deceived was induced by such deception to act to his own detriment. (Tehelka
have not only boastfully admitted that they were pretenders but that they
intended to induce their subjects to act in a manner proving that they
accepted bribes for swinging defence contracts.)
The punishment for the offence under
Section 416 above can extend to imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (Section
419 of IPC)
Another point: can "facts" gathered
in a criminal manner be used as legal evidence? The ongoing army court
of inquiry into the Tehelka disclosures would do well to bear that crucial
issue in mind. The army top brass should also note that US courts do not
accept edited tapes as evidence.
Let it also be noted by one and
all that under Section 237 of our country's Companies Act, 1956, the central
government is empowered to investigate the affairs of a company if, in
the opinion of the Company Law Board, "the business of the company is being
conducted ...for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose..."
Finally, therefore, two confounding
questions:
1. "Does the end justify the means
in investigative journalism?"
2. "Should those young Indians who
want to become 'good old fashioned investigative journalists' first become
conjurers and criminals?"
This amateur pen pusher seeks answers
from the oh-so-many of our wise patriots who display the mantle of the
nation's honorary watchdog.
