 |
| GOVERNANCE
? FORGET IT Vajpayee’s boys and girls have flunked the test |
|
| By:
Kuldip Nayar The Indian Express December 3, 2002 Surely this is not the kind of governance Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wants his party to flaunt in Gujarat, or elsewhere in the country. The Venkataswami Commission was still investigating the Tehelka expose of corruption in defence deals when he was appointed chairman of the one-man committee on Advanced Rulings on Customs and Excise. I hope the Vajpayee cabinet does not entrust to the Liberhan Commission, examining the charges in the Babri demolition case, some job relating to the Government of India. How could the government even think of giving an official assignment to a judge who was more than half-way through the inquiry into charges against Defence Minister George Fernandes among others? I am told that at the end of every sitting, there was a high-level meeting to interpret the judge’s observations. Maybe some of them were not to the liking of the government. The judge himself has said in an interview that the controversy arose when the Centre was asked to define its allegation of a general conspiracy levelled against some persons. It is surprising that an individual of the calibre of Chief Justice S.P. Bharucha recommended Justice Venkataswami’s name. He knew Justice Venkataswami was already on a sensitive job. But even if Chief Justice Bharucha had made the mistake, the government should have pointed out to him that Justice Venkataswami was busy investigating the Tehelka disclosures. The chief justice would have then suggested another name. One cannot avoid the sneaking suspicion that the ruling combine may have managed the exit of Justice Venkataswami when they found the going uncomfortable. This is not to cast aspersions on Justice Venkataswami. He is an upright judge who has now resigned from both jobs. But he should have said ‘no’ to the new assignment. Whether he drew any salary or allowance is not the point. The issue is that when he was holding the Tehelka expose sittings, he was allotted the work connected with advanced rulings on customs and excise. I hope the present chief justice does not forward the name of any other judge to replace Justice Venkataswami. Why shouldn’t Parliament itself deal with allegations of corruption against ministers? This should have, in fact, been done in the first instance itself. When there is a provision for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), it should be exercised to look into charges of corruption against ministers. When the Bofors scandal hit the headlines, a JPC was appointed to go through the gamut of the transaction. It is another matter that the exercise turned out to be a farce. It will be a pity now if the whole exercise on the Tehelka tapes has to be gone over de novo. As many as 181 sittings have been held, 50 witnesses examined and 918 pages of depositions have been recorded. If and when a judge is appointed, he or she can pick up from where Justice Venkataswami had left off. But the new judge may want to hear the case from the beginning. It does not matter to the government because its expenses are covered by the taxpayers’ money. But those at Tehelka, who have been harassed and hounded for nearly two years, may find a fresh exercise too expensive and more irritating. On the other hand, it may even come as a relief because the whole thing had become a probe against the Tehelka journalists. A JPC will be a better option for Tehelka. But the government is bound to resist the appointment of a JPC. Though its sittings are held behind closed doors, the entire evidence becomes public once the report is published. Those in power can never be fond of JPCs. They don’t want their dirty linen to be washed in public. Another example of governance, or again the absence of it, is the lack of settlement of the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri masjid controversy. Over the last decade, the formula which has lost currency is that which assures a constitutional guarantee to Muslims that their mosques, monuments, dargahs will be intact on the condition that they give the Babri masjid site to the Hindu community. Another formula almost became a settlement but Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani reportedly said ‘no’. The formula would not have come to light but for the disclosure by Mohammed Shahid Khan, chairman of the BJP’s minority cell in Gujarat. He resigned from the party in protest a few days ago. This formula envisaged the possession by the Hindu community of the site on which the Babri masjid stood - it would be free to build a temple on it. In return, the Muslims were to have the mausoleum of Mir Qasim, 11 kilometres away from Ayodhya. What made the proposal viable was the support it received from the Imams of Mecca and Medina and the maulanas of some 450 dargahs. According to Shahid Khan, Advani was initially satisfied with the formula. But, subsequently, he rejected it on the ground that if the Ayodhya issue was solved, the BJP would have no issue left for ‘political’ gain. Shahid Khan says that he sought the prime minister’s support. But the prime minister said: ‘You want to rewrite history but no one will allow you to do so.’ Spiking a formula which might have settled the vexing, age-old problem - is this the governance that Vajpayee suggested his party men take to the people in their campaign for Gujarat? Chief Minister Narendra Modi has already responded by introducing Godhra in a big way. Hindutva provides the grist to the propaganda mill of the sangh parivar - it has no other issues. The temple is on top of the BJP’s agenda. The party makes it clear every now and then that it will pursue the issue when it has a majority in Parliament. The very fact that the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri masjid dispute is still a burning question helps the BJP to garner the ‘Hindu vote’. The party’s entire politics is geared towards keeping communal politics alive. |
|
