Author: Ashok Malik
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 5, 2011
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/358712/Congress-backs-discredited-cop.html
If the former Telecom Secretary's statements
are meant to be brushed aside as discredited nonsense, why should a discredited
IPS officer be taken seriously?
As it finds itself increasingly beleaguered,
the Congress is talking itself into one trap after another. Two recent instances
stand out.
In the midst of the telecom scandal trial,
Mr Siddhartha Behura, former Telecom Secretary, told the court of a crucial
meeting that apparently took place on December 4, 2007. The meeting, Mr Behura
claimed, was attended by Mr P Chidambaram, then Finance Minister, and Mr D
Subbarao, then Finance Secretary. This meeting decided upon the pricing of
2G licences, he has said. His contention is that he, as Telecom Secretary,
only implemented the decisions taken at this meeting. In a sense, he has sought
to expand the ambit of culpability.
Responding to Mr Behura's charge, Telecom
Minister Kapil Sibal was dismissive. "We have looked into records,"
he said, "the records show that there was no such meeting. Neither Mr
Chidambaram nor Mr Subbarao remembers any such meeting." He also warned
of "the danger of taking arguments made on behalf of an accused, and
treating them as evidence and gospel truth". Mr Behura, the Telecom Minister
added, would attempt to save himself "even on the basis of non-existent
facts".
For all one knows, Mr Sibal may be right.
Perhaps Mr Behura is indeed lying and attempting to implicate others in a
show of desperation and bravado. If that is the case, the UPA Government needs
to oppose him tooth and nail.
Now consider another example. In Gujarat,
Mr Sanjiv Bhatt, an officer of the Indian Police Service, has spoken of a
meeting at the Gandhinagar residence of Chief Minister Narendra Modi on February
27, 2002. This was on the evening of the Godhra train incineration. Mr Bhatt
has alleged Mr Modi asked that Hindus be allowed to "vent out their anger"
and wanted Muslims to be "taught a lesson".
Potentially this is explosive stuff. A police
officer is actually saying a Chief Minister asked his administration to back
off and allow a state-backed massacre of innocent people. However, the Modi
Government has denied Mr Bhatt was in the meeting of senior police officials
that the Chief Minister called on February 27, 2002. The then State police
chief has refuted Mr Bhatt's contention that he was in the room that day.
Mr Bhatt, it is said, was simply too junior to have attended the meeting.
It has also been established that Mr Bhatt
has been in touch with activists such as Ms Teesta Setalvad and with the Congress's
Leader of the Opposition in the State Assembly. In e-mail correspondence that
is now before the court, he is offered legal support and coaching for his
deposition before the Special Investigative Team by Ms Setalvad. He exchanges
documents with the Congress leader, Mr SS Gohil, and asks him for a Blackberry
phone. He tells another police officer to find out where Haren Pandya, a Minister
in the Gujarat Government who was later assassinated, was on February 27,
2002.
The SIT, set up by the Supreme Court to look
into the Gujarat violence, had asked Mr Bhatt if Pandya was present at the
meeting. Presumably, Mr Bhatt was so engrossed in listening to his Chief Minister
that he didn't notice who else was around. Alternatively, could it be concluded
Mr Bhatt wasn't around himself?
Mr Bhatt has had a controversial career. He
faces court cases for misuse of official authority. He has been involved in
land-grab cases. In one incident, he was charged with framing a person who
had a property dispute with a then judge of the Gujarat High Court. The National
Human Rights Commission passed strictures against Mr Bhatt in this matter
and fined him for "falsely involving a person in a criminal case …
(and violating) fundamental human rights".
Disciplinary action was taken against the
judge as well. The judge appealed before the Supreme Court, but unsuccessfully.
The judge's lawyer, as it happened, was Mr Chidambaram, now Union Home Minister.
Today, of course, Mr Chidambaram glosses over that old association and his
party praises Mr Bhatt's "courage".
Mr Bhatt's history has led to him having run-ins
with the Gujarat Government. He has also been denied a promotion. His career
is at a dead-end. Isn't there enough reason for him to resort to desperate
measures and attempt to resurrect himself "even on the basis of non-existent
facts", to borrow Mr Sibal's expression?
If Mr Behura's statements are meant to be
brushed aside as discredited nonsense, why is Mr Bhatt supposed to be taken
so seriously? Does the Congress believe all non-existent meetings are irrelevant
but some non-existent meetings are less irrelevant than others?
In another episode, the Jan Lok Pal Bill activists
led by Anna Hazare released preliminary findings of a survey they said they
had conducted in Delhi's Chandni Chowk Lok Sabha constituency. The survey
apparently showed overwhelming support for the activists' version of the Lok
Pal Bill. To be fair this proved nothing. The Hazare-driven Jan Lok Pal Bill
is severely flawed and will end up creating a bureaucratic monster.
However, what was worth noting was the Congress's
reaction. Mr Manish Tiwari, the party spokesperson, invited Mr Hazare to contest
the 2014 parliamentary election from Chandni Chowk (now represented by Mr
Sibal) and essentially convert that battle into a referendum on competing
versions of the Lok Pal Bill.
This is an interesting methodology, one that
places primacy on the democratic process and reduces all debate to judgement
only by the electronic voting machine. It is worth considering whether Mr
Harsh Mander can be put up as the National Advisory Council candidate from
Madha or Baramati, take on Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, and convert
a constituency contest into a referendum on competing versions of the Food
Security Bill.
Alternatively, Ms Setalvad (or even Mr Bhatt)
could be the joint Opposition candidate from Maninagar in the December 2012
Gujarat Assembly election. This could then be presented as a referendum on
alternative narratives on Gujarat in the past decade.
Those two final suggestions may sound facetious
and silly. They are; yet no less offensive is Mr Tiwari's mocking invitation
to Anna Hazare to join electoral politics. Indeed, it is the Congress's sudden
belief in the purity and integrity of the political process that is so astonishing.
In Gujarat, it has used extra-political means to fight its opponents. With
the NAC, it has used extra-political mechanisms to draft and push through
legislation. Having built the kitchen, it suddenly can't stand the heat. How
convenient.
- malikashok@gmail.com
