Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Two stories for none, yet some

Two stories for none, yet some

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.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements