Author: A. T. Thiruvengadam
Publication: The Hindu
Date: April 3, 2001
AN ANCHOR of a TV network while
discussing the Tehelka episode said ``we have become the laughing-stock
of the world''. The demand of the opposition parties, especially the Congress,
for the resignation of the government and not for a thorough probe to find
out the truth is making us a ``greater laughing-stock'' of the world.
It appears the Congress is not interested
in truth and will try to grab only power. Of course, nothing better can
be expected from a party whose leaders were often accused of corruption,
abuse of power and some of whom are still facing charges in various courts.
The party's electoral alliance in Tamil Nadu and its support of Mr. Laloo
Prasad Yadav in Bihar are nothing but its utter disregard for truth and
probity. Of course the party's leaders have said ``corruption is a global
phenomenon'' and ``corruption is an individual affair'' and will not apply
this to other parties - especially those in power.
This `Tehelka' was the outfit which
utilised the services of Manoj Prabhakar to malign the icons of Indian
cricket. The public outcry and the CBI investigation drew wide media coverage,
exposure to an obscure organisation and some cricket characters were technically
assassinated. But in the fever and frenzy, the perpetrators escaped scrutiny.
It is a classic textbook exercise of a ``destabilisation operation'' to
obtain public credibility and status for the organisation by such startling
exposures, so that the subsequent ones are more successful and achieve
the purpose. It is not known if the CBI in its enquiries tried to find
out the motives, purposes, professional qualifications of this company
and its members.
According to details published in
print and telecast by electronic media, some operatives of the company,
posing as ``business executives'' of a non-existing company, approached
some politicians (of course of the ruling combine) and bureaucrats, offered
to explore and arrange for investment if they were helped to get purchase
orders for their ware.
They also offered to pay donations
to the party fund. From the above it is clear specific individuals were
targeted, sought after, made to believe that they were in touch with ``business
people'' and were offered inducements and invited to accept money for transactions
which the perpetrators never intended to accomplish.
In short, it was a machination to
entrap a few people to commit misdemeanour by enticing with inducements
and allurements. The judiciary of the country and the world over has decried
this trap as `illegitimate' and the perpetrators to be treated as accomplices
in the crime. The Supreme Court has observed that ``the very best of men
have moments of weakness and temptation, and even the worst, times when
they repent of an evil thought... it behoves society and the state to protect
them... not to place further temptation''. The Supreme Court further said
that it would express the same hope as Chief Justice Lord Goddard of England
who said ``I hope the day is far distant when it will become a common practice
in this country for police officers to be told to commit an offence themselves
for getting evidence against some one: if they do commit an offence they
ought also to be convicted''.
A dangerous portent
Thus we find ``Tehelka'' has indulged
in organising a trap to malign a few political leaders who might or might
not have been avaricious or simply naive. The same could happen to any
politician from Ms. Sonia Gandhi to Mr. E. K. Nayanar. It is naive to believe
the professing of altruism and public good. ``What was in it for the company
and its masters'' was the one the CBI failed to identify in the match-fixing
controversy. The premier investigating agency followed the `arrow' and
killed the targets, without finding the `archer' and his motives. Hence
a thorough probe by the House is required to ferret out the truth. A dangerous
portent is the involvement of the members of the Armed Forces, which scrupulously
avoided getting involved in political machinations and skulduggery. By
enticing them into this ``illegitimate'' entrapment the bold backbone of
the country's security is made spineless. Once it is destroyed it cannot
be replaced.
The political elite, instead of
trying to score points and assist in destabilisation, should have a complete
discussion, if necessary, by summoning the ``dramatis personae'' with all
recorded tapes, to the bar of the House and seek the truth. Then comes
retribution where it is due. Otherwise, they will be failing in their duty
to enlighten the public.
Manufactured scoop
Invidious comparisons are made between
this and the exposure by Mr. Arun Shourie. The Bofors expose is also there.
But neither Mr Shourie nor Ms Chitra Subramaniam were participants in the
murky affair. It was a journalist scoop of the transaction already done.
But what `Tehelka'' has done is to manufacture a scoop. There is a gulf
of difference between a genuine scoop and a manufactured one in which the
perpetrator has acted as agent provocateur.
Fund collection for party purposes
is one of the blemishes of democracy. No country in the world is free from
it; what becomes sinister is the quid pro quo. In this transaction, the
quid pro quo is only a mirage, because no deal was struck and there was
no intention on the part of anyone. The operation was limited and tailor
made for political purposes at a time when elections are round the corner.
For whose ``benefit'' should be found out. The leaders owe it to the electorate
to find the answer to the query and bring out the truth so that the already
battered and bruised Indian does not become a ``laughing-stock'' of the
world.
