Of Cons, Connections and Contradictions
Sid Harth
A necessary standard
IT WAS JUST as well that Mr. Harin Pathak, Union Minister of State for
Defence and Mr. Ashok Bhatt, Gujarat Minister for Health, were made to
quit office following their being chargesheeted in an Ahmedabad court
for murder and rioting. There is no way that they, particularly Mr.
Pathak, could have continued without becoming an embarrassment to the
BJP leadership - more specifically to the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal
Behari Vajpayee - given the compulsions of coalitional politics. The
legal investigation process has caught up with the two Gujarat leaders
who are among the 12 facing criminal charges related to the murder of a
police head constable during the anti-reservation riots in Ahmedabad in
1985. That the case is 15 years old cannot by itself absolve them of
their culpability; it only underscores the need to expedite reforms in
the justice delivery system. To say, as the Defence Minister, Mr.
George Fernandes, did, that the events of 1985 did ``not make any
sense'' after a lapse of 15 years is to be flippant about an issue that
has a vital bearing on the national imperative of decriminalising
politics and also of upholding the rule of law.
During his previous tenure as Prime Minister, when confronted with such
situations of ministerial incumbents being hauled up in court for
criminal offences - Mr. Sedapatti Muthiah (of the AIADMK) and Mr. Buta
Singh, for instance - Mr. Vajpayee had set down a normative standard
for application in such cases; it required that those against whom
charges of corruption have been framed by a court of law will
necessarily have to step down from public office until they are
exonerated. The charges against Mr. Pathak and Mr. Bhatt may not
involve `moral turpitude', but that cannot in any away detract from the
gravity of the criminal offences brought up before court. Nothing could
be more specious, or outrageous, than the argument that such charges as
`murder', `attempt to murder' and `criminal conspiracy' are slapped
against political opponents by the powers that be as a matter of course
or in a `routine fashion'. If the much-too-common `vendetta' and
`conspiracy' theories put out by political leaders at the receiving end
lacked credibility, the pervasive tendency on the part of their friends
and patrons in Government to give them a ``clean chit'', arrogating to
themselves the powers of the judiciary, is highly deplorable and liable
to the charge of contempt of court. Remember the manner in which clean
chits were given, even without a semblance of an enquiry, to Sangh
Parivar elements in the Graham Staines murder case as also in the
various other cases of attacks on the Christian community reported in
the recent past?
By getting Mr. Pathak to quit, the Vajpayee regime may have deprived
the Opposition of a ground for attack. With persons such as Mr. L.K.
Advani, Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi and Ms. Uma Bharati (reinducted into
the Cabinet last week) keeping their ministerial berths undisturbed,
despite their facing criminal charges in the Babri Masjid demolition
case, its vulnerability to the charge of double standards remains as
high as ever. In fact, the Pathak- Bhatt case only serves to bring the
`double standards' into a sharper focus. The Government has
persistently sought to explain away their continued presence by
claiming that the prosecution against them is ``political'' in nature.
The distinction is patently invidious and the explanation is too facile
to carry conviction. The general norm that chargesheeted persons should
not remain in public office cannot be restricted to charges of
corruption but must apply with equal force to all serious criminal
offences. This is to say that the Vajpayee Government cannot continue
the farce of taking the moral high ground of clean governance, even
while allowing the Ministers tainted by criminal charges in the
`Ayodhya case' to stay on.
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php3?id=4029&type=India&theme=A
BJP defensive on issue of resignation
STATESMAN NEWS SERVICE
NEW DELHI, Nov. 13. — The BJP was today on the defensive on the issue
of resignation of the three Union ministers — Mr LK Advani, Mr Murli
Manohar Joshi and Miss Uma Bharati — if they are chargesheeted for
their role in the Ayodhya agitation leading to the demolition of the
Babari Masjid on 6 December, 1992.
The prime question in the mind of even some BJP leaders appeared to be
the fate of these three leaders if charges were framed against them.
After the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, reportedly forced Mr
Harin Pathak to resign as a Union minister in the context of charge-
sheets against him, none in the party seems to be certain what would
happen.
Senior party leaders, including the BJP president, tried a balancing
act saying the party would discuss the issue when and if actual charges
are framed. However, Mr Bangaru Laxman claimed that no charge-sheets
would be filed against them if the law was allowed to take its course.
“I’m sure no such situation will arise where charges will be framed
against any of the three ministers,” he said while arguing that Mr
Advani and others were innocent even in the eyes of the country.
Neither Mr Advani nor any of other BJP leaders or the party committed
any crime by participating in the Ayodhya agitation, Mr Laxman said. “I
don’t think a situation will arise where the party will have to take a
decision on the issue,” he added.
The Ayodhya agitation was a political one and a different yardstick
should be applied for the violence that take place in such cases, Mr
Laxman said. None of the three leaders accused in the demolition case
gave any statement or did anything for which they could be held guilty,
he said.
Mr Laxman, however, could not categorically say whether the standards
of public morality upheld by the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari
Vajpayee, in the Harin Pathak case would be followed if the three
ministers were chargesheeted in the Ayodhya case.
“The party will review the situation when it comes. There is no
question of the party taking a stand now on what will happen in
future,” he added.
The senior BJP leader, Mr JP Mathur, said the party felt that the cases
filed against some of its leaders in the Ayodhya demolition case,
were “false, malicious and politically motivated”.
The party had already challenged the setting up of a special court to
deal with such cases and the case was pending before the Supreme Court,
he said. “As such, therefore, there was no case before the party
against Mr Advani,” he said.
The party spokesman, Mr Jana Krishnamurthy, said there was no case
against Mr Advani and, therefore, there was no question of his
resigning from the Union council of ministers.
While interpreting Mr Laxman’s statement, he pointed out when a
questioner asked him whether the party would also seek the resignation
of Mr Advani if he was chargesheeted, Mr Laxman simply said the party
would consider it at that time. As such there was no case against Mr
Advani, Mr Krishnamurthy said.
A source in the PMO asserted that Mr Pathak had not resigned on his own
and that he was asked to do so by Mr Vajpayee. The Prime Minister had
turned down the suggestion that Mr Pathak and the minister in the
Gujarat government, Mr Ashok Bhatt, who resigned subsequently, be given
time to explain their position to him.
They were charged under various sections of the IPC for their alleged
role in the anti-reservation stir in 1985. The Union law minister, Mr
Arun Jaitley, who looked into the matter, reportedly told Mr Vajpayee
that although the case would not stand the scrutiny of law, the
continuation of the chargesheeted ministers would not be politically
tenable.
SNS Calcutta adds: Mr Jyoti Basu said today the dropping of the
chargesheeted minister of state for defence is one more evidence of the
extent of corruption and immorality that has pervaded the BJP.
“What can I say on this latest development? We’ve been consistently
telling the people that the BJP-led government is ruining the country,
both economically and socially, through its policies of sale-out of the
country to multinational corporations and dividing the people on the
basis of religion,” Mr Basu told reporters at his first Press
conference at Alimuddin Street since he stepped down as chief minister.
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php3?id=4031&type=India&theme=A
PM upset with minister’s media blitz
SHIVNATH JHA
STATESMAN NEWS SERVICE
NEW DELHI, Nov. 13. — The Prime Minister’s Office is reportedly unhappy
with the “excessive publicity” being given to the Union health
minister, Dr CP Thakur. It has questioned the induction of over half a
dozen government employees for the ‘exclusive’ task of publicity for
the minister in print and electronic media.
Sources said “since health and family welfare falls under the social
sector, the department needs publicity about plans and policies of the
government, not the minister’s day-to-day programme and schedule”.
The PMO has only two persons, Mr HK Dua and Mr Ashok Tandon, to handle
media, sources said. Dr Thakur is learnt to have deputed seven
officials, including three administrative service officials — one each
of IAS, Indian Information Service and Indian Revenue Service — to take
care of publicity.
“Dr Thakur is the only minister in the Vajpayee government who has such
a jumbo department for publicity,” an official said. He has two
officers on special duty, Mr Gunjan Prasad and Dr Keshav Murthy, a
private secretary, Mr Sanjeev Ranjan, two additional private
secretaries, Mr Bharadwaj and Mr Anil Kumar, and two assistant private
secretaries, Mr Shankar and Mr Sudershan, who have been assigned to
look after press and publicity.
In the past four months, Dr Thakur has addressed over 110 press
conferences apart from one-on-one meetings with journalists, sources
said.
“He is always in media focus and does not even mind
controversies... “several officials in the ministry are upset about his
style of functioning”. Mrs Rita Verma, former minister of state for
health, was allegedly transferred because of a spat with the minister.
Nirman Bhawan insiders said that on Friday, the secretary, health, Mr
Javed A Chaudhary, and the secretary, family welfare, Mr AR Nanda,
summoned a senior official of the Press Information Bureau and asked
him to stop giving such publicity to the minister as it was hampering
the functioning of their departments.
When the PIB official expressed helplessness, one of the officers
reportedly said the Prime Minister was not happy with such excessive
publicity.
The officials could not be contacted as Mr Chaudhary has left for
Geneva to attend a WHO meeting, Mr Nanda is in Thiruvananthapuram.
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php3?id=4027&type=India&theme=A
Raids come a year after controversial Agarwal report
SRINJOY CHOWDHURY
STATESMAN NEWS SERVICE
NEW DELHI, Nov. 13. — The nationwide CBI raids on the former ICC
president, Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya, and other cricket administrators,
private broadcasters and senior Doordarshan officials may be
unprecedented, but they come a year after the ‘scams’ mentioned in the
controversial Arun Agarwal report that was commissioned by Mr OP
Kejriwal, the then chief executive officer of Prasar Bharati.
The CBI is believed to be drawing up chargesheets against some of those
raided on the basis of the Agarwal report which said DD lost crores of
rupees because of these deals.
Today’s raids targeted all those believed to be involved in the so-
called scams: Mr Dalmiya, Mr Mark Mascarenhas of World Tel, Mr K
Kuhnikrishnan, deputy director-general (Sports) and Mr PK Seth, DDG
(Finance), of DD, and other bosses of DD and private firms. DD sources
said others raided or questioned included Mr Rakesh Bahadur, formerly
of DD, Mr Jaideep Bhatnagar, DD official, and Mr Siddhartha Ray of
Stracon.
The ‘scams’ began with the formation of a sports consortium to buy
rights to broadcast and then market sporting events, says the Agarwal
report. “There is absolutely no doubt that the Sports consortium has
put DD to a massive loss... The sports consortium was only a facade.
Stracon overwhelmingly dominated it.”
The major events named in the ‘scam’ include the ICC Knockout nine-
nation tournament or ‘mini-World Cup’, World Cup 1999, Four-Nation
Independence Cup 1997, Wimbledon and the French Open in 1997.
The report makes the following observations:
* Doordarshan had initially bid $8.5 million for the Indian and
international rights to the tournament. Mr Dalmiya met Mr Siddharth Ray
of Stracon and Mr Bahadur and it was revised to $11 million merely
because Mr Bahadur felt that TWI, a rival bidder, had bid a higher
amount.
“There is no documentary evidence to show that the rival bidder .. had
made an offer of a higher amount. There also seems to be no explanation
as to why DD selected M/S Stracon for special friendship in the whole
deal since the consortium had not yet been formed. The basis for the
feeling of the concerned officer (Mr Bahadur) that TWI was outbidding
on the offer made by DD was on account of his discussions with Mr
Dalmiya,” the report says.
* Four-Nation Independence Cup in 1997: “Doordarshan not only paid Rs
3.40 crore towards the production cost of the Independence Cup cricket
tournament without justifying the elements of cost but assumed income-
tax liability of Rs 99.66 lakh also. DD also did not recover Rs 9.80
crore.
“While working out the minimum guarantee of Rs 14.40 crore, Doordarshan
assumed the opportunity cost of telecast of Independence Cup as Rs 5
crore .. Analysis by audit of revenue earned during the corresponding
days of the week immediately preceding those on which the matches took
place disclosed the revenue lost due to telecast of this programme
aggregated to Rs 8.91 crore. Thus DD had omitted to reckon revenue of
about Rs 3.91 crore.”
* Wimbledon 1997: According to a ministry of information and
broadcasting note: “Doordarshan did not recover Rs 2.50 crore from the
agency and suffered a lose of Rs 1.64 due to non-booking of satellite.”
* 1997 French Open: Two companies, TV Today and Stracon, were bidding
for marketing rights. “Even if the event made Rs 70 lakh, DD would earn
around Rs 28 lakh. This is less than that paid by TV Today for the same
event in the earlier year — Rs 30 lakh. The only conclusion that one
can make from the manner in which M/S Stracon was selected and the way
the terms were changed to favour it is one of collusion.”
* World Cup 1999: The World Cup 1996 rights for India involved 32
matches as was purchased for $4.75 million. In 1999, DD planned to bid
about $5 million for the live telecast of 42 matches. “A note to this
effect was put up to the ministry (of I&B) only on 14.7.97, two months
after the deadline. The reasons for the delay are not explained on the
file .. Due to inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of the DD,
the rights were sold to ESPN. Ultimately, DD had to buy only 11 matches
for $6 million from ESPN.”
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php3?id=4030&type=India&theme=A
Naidu report card on colleagues
STATESMAN NEWS SERVICE
HYDERABAD, Nov. 13. — Time spent in office and the swiftness with which
files are disposed off are the first two yardsticks Mr N Chandrababu
Naidu is using to start his process of evaluating his ministers’
performance.
After the Cabinet meeting today, Mr Naidu sprang a surprise by reading
out two sets of statistics. One was the amount of time they spent in
the secretariat and the other was the time they took to clear files.
Mr Naidu used the data from September and October, Cabinet sources
said. The average time spent per day was calculated from the arrival
and departure time the minister leaves with his identity card on the
electronic swipemachines.
The junior ministers, by and large, were found to be spending more time
in office than the senior ministers. Senior ministers explained that
work from their native districts and from the districts assigned to
them under the district development committees kept them away from
Hyderabad.
Some ministers told Mr Naidu that they do not have any time machine in
their respective office blocks. Mr Naidu asked the chief secretary to
have them installed immediately.
Tribal welfare minister Mrs M Manikumari and cooperation minister Mr C
Ramachandra Rao spent the most time in the secretariat, an average of
nine hours per day.
After this Mr Naidu listed the time each minister took to dispose off
files. The accepted norm to clear a file is one week. Industries
minister Mr K Vidyadher Rao on an average took about five days to clear
a file. One file, however, took nearly three weeks.
At the far end of this detail was endowments minister Mr D Sivarama
Raju. He took a whooping 43 days to clear a file. Interestingly, Mr
Raju shot to fame a year ago after paying a visit to the Lord
Venkateshwara Temple incognito, where employees asked him for a bribe
to let him in.
Mr Naidu, however, exercised caution and reserved his comments. He only
said that he is assessing each of them. We have to work with the full
knowledge of our responsibility, he told them.
--
http://www.indiacyberportal.com/maintain.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.