Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: March 27, 2001
We need a new grammar of ethics
in journalism and governance to understand recent developments in both.
When the Tehelka.com expose` broke out, one could not imagine it would
hog headlines for so long, or that it would throw up as many questions
about journalistic credibility as about the calibre of politicians, bureaucrats
and defence personnel. Nevertheless, with Government having come under
acute pressure from the incredible caper, it is worth examining the multiple
issues thrown up by the episode.
Prima facie, matters are simple
- Tehelka, which made startling revelations about match-fixing in cricket
last year, has done a similar expose` in arms purchases. Yet there are
significant differences. In the first case, the dotcom wanted to advertise
itself and recruited a disgruntled cricketer to secretly record popular
knowledge in sports circles about involved players and their connections
with underworld don, Dawood Ibrahim. The revelations triggered an enquiry
that nailed Tehelka's collaborator himself, among others. As considerable
time had elapsed between the disclosures and the story's climax, Tehelka
dissociated itself from the collaborator's character and motives and claimed
that its sole aim was to clean up the gentleman's game by forcing cricket
authorities to act against defaulters. Though secret audio-video recordings
were new to journalism, the story fell within the profession's traditional
parameters of investigating and bringing wrong-doings to light.
'Armsgate' is different. It apparently
falls in the category of 'two stories for none' - a situation where a newspaper
prints a sensational story one day only to publish a retraction the very
next day, thereby securing 'two stories' (news items) when there is actually
no story at all! Thus, journalists posing as dealers of a fake company
move around the capital for nearly seven months, meet a host of middlemen,
retired and serving officers, and politicians, and offer cash gifts to
get a fake product examined. The dotcom claims to have spent over rupees
eleven lakhs in the venture (some writers feel the figure should be much
higher).
Since Tehelka's methods are unorthodox,
questions legitimately arise about its motives, finances (financiers?),
and the timing of the non-story. Even rich publications do not give journalists
the luxury of devoting seven months to pursue a false story, shell out
eleven lakhs, and end the day without 'catching' the Minister or bureaucrat(s)
they wished to entrap. What struck me forcefully when the story broke was
why, having invested so much time and money, the dotcom did not continue
the charade long enough to get the letter of intent for demonstrating the
fake product and/or a meeting with someone higher up in the Defence Ministry?
Since it claims it wanted to expose the sleaze permeating defence contracts
from top to bottom, why could it not reach the top?
Could it be that the timing of the
expose`, rather than the quality of the findings, was the main objective?
Was it hoped the forceful innuendoes would have a specific impact upon
NDA allies? Ms. Mamata Banerjee's hasty exit, Dr. Chandrababu Naidu's firm
refusal to quit, and the near-split in the Samata Party suggest that a
political fallout was desired. There are also allegations about stock market
manipulations to discredit the budget (personally I have deep reservations
about the budget and the Government's callous indifference towards senior
citizens, the middle class, and the poor). Still, the Government has done
well to finally act against the major operators. Hundreds of small investors
have been ruined in the scam; some have committed suicide. The culprits
must be brought to book and ruined families compensated; we cannot allow
market raiders to get away with such practices.
Tehelka had no story; yet many stories
followed. BJP president Bangaru Laxman resigned the same day, obviously
to save the Prime Minister whose office and foster family received 'honourable
mention' in the contentious tapes. Samata Party president Jaya Jaitly quit
after much resistance, taking Defence Minister George Fernandes with her.
All Samata ministers resigned, but were eventually persuaded to return.
Since it soon became clear that the Government would survive and that Signora
Sonia Gandhi's ambitions were a hurdle to opposition unity, Ms. Banerjee
tried to revive the political alliance with the BJP in West Bengal.
Regardless of what the investigations
reveal, the Government was undeniably inept in handling the crisis. Once
the Defence Ministry ordered an enquiry into the conduct of serving officers,
there was no way that Mr. Fernandes could continue in office; he should
have resigned at once. Mr. Vajpayee should also have been aware of Ms.
Banerjee's uneasiness in the cabinet and the status of her talks with Congress
on the forthcoming elections in West Bengal, and decided if he wanted a
poll alliance with Trinamool Congress before she actually quit. Instead
we have the absurd charade of simultaneous talks for divorce and reconciliation
between BJP and Trinamool Congress!
The Prime Minister should also have
dismissed Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra and OSD N.K. Singh, both of
whom are disliked by senior cabinet ministers. The case against them may
be nebulous, but it is indisputable that they have brought considerable
controversy and disrepute to the PMO. Instead, Mr. Vajpayee permitted them
to hold a press conference to defend themselves against Tehelka's insinuations,
something unheard of for serving officers! Mr. Mishra used the occasion
to sneer at public opinion and suggest that the Prime Minister dare not
sack him. Questions naturally arise whether the two men's proximity to
Mr. Vajpayee's foster son-in-law keeps them in office.
Regardless of the truth, by retaining
obvious liabilities, Mr. Vajpayee has virtually invited the opposition
to train its guns on his office and residence. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi could not
stand such pressure with a thumping majority in Parliament; Mr. Vajpayee
should not even try with his narrow, dwindling margin. Even at this late
stage, he would do well to invoke that forgotten maryada purushottam, Rama,
and banish members of his entourage who do not enjoy public esteem. What
is more, if the BJP is to have a future, the geriatric stranglehold must
be dismantled forthwith. Mr. Jana Krishnamurthy's elevation as president
is a wasted opportunity; a younger, more dynamic and mature leader like
Mr. Venkaiah Naidu would have won greater public credibility. Sadly, Mr.
Suresh Mehta 's resignation from responsibility for Kutch relief found
no mention at the party conclave; clearly the people of Gujarat will have
no respite from the scandalous Mr. Keshubhai Patel till the next election.
Finally, I am curious about Disinvestment
Minister Arun Shourie endorsing Tehelka-style journalism in opposition
to the Government's views, and the reservations of the profession itself.
His defence comes even as the Home Ministry is probing whether an officer
with links in a particular community was involved in a conspiracy against
the Government. If true, this could have international ramifications. Worse,
India is ensnared as never before by Islamic fundamentalism; a sub-divisional
magistrate has been shot from a masjid in Kanpur, where SIMI activists,
armed with hand grenades, indulged in mayhem in which at least sixteen
persons died. Similar incidents, fueled by unsubstantiated reports of the
burning of scriptures, have been sponsored in other places also. Kashmir
continues to burn, and its Sikh minority is debating en masse migration.
Unfortunately, the Government appears to have lost its grip and can be
seen placating militant minority sentiments at a time when the majority
community feels orphaned and besieged.