Tiger By The Tail?

The confusion over the bribery tapes needs to be resolved. It has a critical bearing on both Indian politics and the media, says SHOMA CHAUDHURY

AT 4.05 pm on July 22, 2008, a sickening new image was added to India’s overbooked gallery of infamy. Bangaru Laxman sliding one lakh into his drawer. Babu Bajrangi confessing nonchalantly on national TV about how he raped and killed Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. 11 MPs caught on camera taking cash for asking questions in Parliament. And now three BJP MPs waving an orgy of cash in the House — an alleged bribe in return for their votes.

For several contentious weeks in the run-up to the nuclear deal trust vote, murky talk had swirled around the capital. But rather than revulsion, for both politicians and the media, rumours about the buying and selling of MPs seemed no more than an occasion for jokes about their “price rise”. Gone was the opprobrium associated with the Narasimha Rao-JMM bribery case. In the new economy, it seemed everything was kosher.

The scandal — staged in the heart of the House itself — has changed all that. Beneath the rousing beat — “Singh is King, Singh is King” — and the energetic talk of pushing through reforms, darker questions are gathering. The vote has been won, but the trust has been lost. How will that “ghastly” mom ent, as former solicitor general Harish Salve calls it, be pursued to its just end?

In a curious twist, the role of media house CNN IBN — and by implication the role of the media at large — has come to occupy the centre of that debate. As the BJP’s embarrassing triad stormed the House — an act of desperation that legal experts say should in itself be punished — they shouted that CNN IBN had video proof of the bribe. Set aside the ancillary questions, set aside all the possible back stories that may or may not exist: if you have a story about one set of MPs bribing another set of MPs on a major national vote, what could be in greater public interest?

Yet, inexplicably, CNN IBN failed to telecast the tapes. As the scandal erupted anyway — in the absence of the tapes and the proof they might have provided — with crippling déjà vu, the denials began to flow. Amar Singh went into war mode. More lowkey, Ahmed Patel swore to resign from public life “if ” the allegations were proved.

CNN IBN has defended its decision on the ground that it needed “further verification” and that “extra caution” was warranted given that “honourable Members of Parliament” were involved. But lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan is not convinced. “As journalists they had a duty to release the tapes to the public. They have really goofed up. Perhaps they were intimidated by some interested lawyer, or worse, they had other considerations. Even if the tapes are with the Speaker, we are going to move an RTI application.”

Two former Law Ministers, Ram Jethmalani and Shanti Bhushan, are equally strong in their condemnation. Says Bhushan, “So what if the investigation is incomplete. Rajeep Sardesai is losing credibility by not making his evidence public. Look at the rumours flying around. Now that the story is in the public domain, he should put out his material, with the caveat that it is incomplete. At least people will know what is in the tapes.”

Sardesai has an indignant defence. “How can constitutional experts and political parties dictate my timeline for telecasting my material? Do they know what is there in the tapes? We needed time for further authentication and were not ready to telecast.” He may have a point. Given the political establishment’s vicious response to earlier exposés, perhaps there was a moment of fear, perhaps there was some genuine trepidation about putting out an incomplete story . But as others in his community might tell him, if you have a hot potato in your hand, you must deliver it as it is before it burns you.

As Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief, Indian Express says, “The problem is, everything now is at the level of innuendo. As journalists, we don’t work for governments or the CBI or public prosecutors. Our duty is to the public.” Editor-in-Chief, Pioneer, and BJP Rajya Sabha Member, Chandan Mitra is more circumspect. “I think Rajdeep Sardesai took the correct decision in not telecasting just prior to the vote. This would have amounted to helping a political party, and though in this case it would have been the BJP that benefited, it would have set a bad precedent. Some day the boot could be on the other foot, so in principle, I think he did the right thing.”

Others might argue that honest journalism can never be about political calculations. In the minefield of hard, investigative journalism, it is safest to keep only the merit of a story as one’s lodestar. But the real problem today is that both the outrage against CNN IBN—and the defence of it — is being conducted in the dark.