Author: M. V. Kamath
Publication: Organiser
Date: April 15, 2001
Now that the anti-BJP media hype
has slowed if not died down and talk of overthrowing the Government has
receded, the time has come to inquire what the Tehelka.com is all about
and what it sought to achieve.
First, let it be quite clear that
what Tehelka had done was not investigative journalism-we do not have to
go overboard on that-but What in the United States has come to be known
as Entrapment Journalism. Arid the difference between the two is that between
chalk and cheese. In legalese, as a Washington-based correspondent recently
pointed out, entrapment is the act of officers or agents of a Government
that induces a person to commit a crime not contemplated by him, for the
purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions against him.
Investigative journalism is intended
to find out what actually has been done. A classic example of this is that
of Sucheta Dalal ferreting out the Harshad Mehta scam. Entrapment journalism
is what government agents do to trap a person by inducing him or her to
do or say certain things by leading the person subtly into some form of
self-incrimination. It is by no means journalism. To dub it so is an insult
to the profession. Whatever the intentions of Tehelka-and whoever is behind
it-is a matter for its editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal and his conscience.
Entrapment, as Chidananda Rajaghatta noted in The Indian Express (March
19) "ranks alongside provocation and self-defence as one of the pleas entertained
under the rubric 'situational defence'" which means a defendant is entitled
to an acquittal if he committed the crime under circumstances constituting
an entrapment.
It does not matter that the evidence
against the defendant is overwhelming or that his guilt is undisputed.
If he was entrapped, he goes free. Bangaru Laxman was entrapped. So was
Jaya Jaitley, so indeed very many others. To call this investigative journalism
is 'to make a mockery of clean journalism and deserves to be strongly condemned.
Tehelka's intentions may have been honourable but their application leaves
many questions to be answered. A claim made on behalf of Tehelka is that
ends justify means and if the end is noble, any ignoble means to reach
it is justified. This is poppycock. One has only to remember what happened
when Richard Nixon's, henchmen broke into the offices of the Democratic
Party in the Watergate housing complex in Washington DC, only to be caught
red-handed. It is immaterial whether' the Democratic Party had some incriminating
material that needed to be exposed. The fact of the matter is that the
thugs took recourse to illegal ways.
If, some day, Tehelka indulges in
house-breaking in its self-imposed mission of cleansing the administration
its supporters among today's intelligentsia may have cause to regret their
stand. The second point to remember is that no BJP Minister has been involved
in what our media has been pleased to call 'sleaze' unlike P.V. Narasimha
Rao who received suitcases full of currency notes to the equivalent of
some five crore of rupees. Narasimha Rao did not resign; nor did Sonia
Gandhi ask him to. And let it be remembered that Narasimha Rao was not
only Prime Minister, but was president of the Congress as well. He resigned
from neither position. Again, nor did Sonia Gandhi ask him to Rao totally
ignored her.
That at the Congress session in
Bangalore, Sonia Gandhi (whose friend Ottavio Quattrochhi is still absconding
and does not have the moral courage to face an Indian court on the Bofors
deal) should be seen cheek by jowl with Narasimha Rao with the media refusing
to take note of this, speaks for itself. It does not speak too highly of
our media pundits' sense of impartiality. They should remember that Bangaru
Laxman resigned, even if it is claimed that he was forced to.
Incidentally there have been hints-and
like all hints uncorroborated with evidence-that Tehelka is not all that
innocent and very likely was pushed into action by Congress. That a company
that reportedly did not have enough cash to pay its minimal staff regularly
should have Rs 27 lakh to spend on its sting operation understandably raises'
doubts about, Shri Tejpal's credibility. Shri Tejpal no doubt is aware
of the comment in Shakespeare's Hamlet: "Me thinks the lady protests too
much". Shri Tejpal's protestations of innocence invite suspicion, especially
in view of the glee in Congress camp. For all one knows, he may be innocent.
But suspicion about intentions persist. Good intentions are no excuse for
wrong behaviour.
But what is this 'sleaze' that the
media is talking about? The Indian Army is not the creation of the BJP.
And within the Army structure itself no deal can be easily concluded without
inputs from various sources. It is not that the Defence Minister can arbitrarily
sign a deal without taking into consideration inputs provided by so many
committees specially appointed to go into great details into the suitability
of a given weapons system. Even conceding that the final word rests with
the Defence Minister-and if that is not to be, what is a Minister for?
- he is still bound by the advice of many experts.
The Tehelka tapes do not show any
impropriety on the part of Shri George Fernandes, nor, shocking though
it may sound, on the part of Jaya Jaitley. The objection against her seems
to be that she took money while promising to recommend the fake and nonexistence
West End International's case for consideration. If she had not taken money,
would she have been guilty of impropriety? The problem here is of raising
party funds. This is an issue that calls for more detailed consideration.
When a party accepts large funds
from even high-sounding sources, the presumption is that somewhere down
the line some quid pro is-expected. To believe otherwise is to be exceptionally
naive. Party donations an here in the world implies certain obligations
on the party to fulfil unstated but expected demands. Are we to believe
that the Sukh Rams, Antulays, Gundu Raos and Arjun Singhs received what
they did because their donors were moved by noble thoughts? But whatever
the motives entertained by Tehelka, it has exposed certain weaknesses in
our political system that, need to be repaired and this has to be undertaken
soonest.
Blaming the BJP for the prevailing
system is neither here nor there. Even looking askance at the Prime Minister's
Office is beside the point. If Shri Brajesh Mishra is to be blamed, can't
we blame Shri P.N. Haksar who, as Indira Gandhi' adviser was responsible
for returning several thousand square miles of Pakistani territory won
during the last war without getting anything back for this generosity in
return?
Our media pundits have done a lot
of damage to the country. A little bit of introspection on their part may
not out of order. Hating BJP may be good politics, but it is bad statesmanship
and betrays a mindset that is inimical to the best interests of the country,
a point that even Sonia Gandhi who has much to hide may wish to take note
of. The Bofors case is still pending and so are many other charges against
her and her supine party.
