By Swapan Dasgupta
Just as cinema viewers (or least they did so in the
old days) clap and cheer the hero as he delivers devastating blows to the
villain and his flunkeys, today’s TV audiences really get turned on at the
sight of political leaders and their spokespersons squirming as they try and
field embarrassing questions.
The past month has been great for TV anchors. They
have competed with each other in hurling sharp questions at politicians and
then smirking in triumph. The audiences have delighted at the spectacle of silver-tongued
netas tie themselves up in knots
trying to defend the indefensible and getting needlessly aggressive as credible
logic evades them.
By and large it has been the Congress which has at
the receiving end of the media’s politician baiting. But last week was open
season on the BJP thanks to the innovative business practices of its President
Nitin Gadkari. As someone who isn’t inimical to the BJP, it was painful to
watch its representatives who, only the other day were thundering against the
slippery practices of a Robert Vadra and Virbhadra Singh all flustered over
seemingly incontrovertible evidence of dodgy practices of Gadkari’s
companies—and yet doggedly insisting that it is best to reserve judgment until
an inquiry.
It is entirely possible that Gadkari and his Purti
group of companies have a convincing explanation for its investors providing dubious
addresses and the source of their funds that were invested into the trust of a
‘social entrepreneur’. As of now the inquisitors haven’t been enlightened and
have come to believe the worst. Yet, the obvious pitfalls of a trial-by-media
apart, there is an issue that bothers me. When Gadkari took his business
decisions on behalf of the Purti group, did he do so in accordance with a
mandate given by the party? Were his investments an extension of his political
responsibilities, as an MLC in Maharashtra, as a president of the Maharashtra
state BJP or as the BJP’s national President?
If the answer is a resounding No, why is it
incumbent on the part of the BJP to come to the defence of Purti’s business
practices? That is the responsibility of Gadkari, his accountant, his chauffer,
baker, astrologer and others who were pillars of the Purti group. Surely the
BJP doesn’t believe that it should act as a protective shield for the private
concerns of all its leaders. Will the party, for example, now take it upon itself
to defend its Rajya Sabha MP Ajay Sancheti, a friend of Gadkari from Nagpur,
who has been accused of many wrongdoings?
There was consternation in the country when Robert
Vadra was put into an isolation ward and the top guns of the Union Cabinet were
wheeled out to speak in his defence. The competitive rush to defend the Gandhi
family’s errant son-in-law was attributed to the Congress’ slavish culture of
dynasty worship. Was it really necessary for the BJP to emulate this
disagreeable culture?
The entire controversy over Purti’s sources of
funding has done incalculable damage to the standing and reputation of its
party President. Regardless of the meaningless speculation over who ‘leaked’
the story, the fact is there were some skeletons in Gadkari’s cupboard and thse
have come tumbling out. In the public perception what matters is not whether or
not there was a ‘conspiracy’ to defame the BJP but that he is now regarded as
damaged goods.
Unfortunately for the party, the damage is not
confined to Gadkari the individual and his business associates. There has been
considerable collateral damage caused by the unthinking display of loyalty.
Take the case of L.K. Advani who came out in Gadkari’s defence and tried to
make a distinction between his role as a businessman and his public life. This
is the same Advani who in 1996 resigned his seat in Parliament after it was
suggested that he was a recipient of tainted money. Advani made it clear that
he wouldn’t contest elections until he was fully cleared and he stuck to his
word. This is the same Advani who undertook a nationwide yatra last year to
highlight the distortions created by the black economy. What has occasioned
this shift from an insistence on the highest ethical standards? Advani may have
an explanation but these may seem less credible than Arvind Kejriwal’s
insistence that the Congress and BJP are two sides of the same counterfeit
coin.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that those who
constitute the BJP’s loyal vote bank are disgusted by the leadership’s
unwillingness to confront reality. The ‘informal’ BJP group that met last
Friday night and backed Gadkari may have done so on the ground that the party
must not be browbeaten into a decision. But that was only part of the story. A
more pressing fear was the belief that Gadkari’s exit will facilitate a
takeover of the BJP by Narendra Modi.
Sunday Pioneer, October 28, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment