Rasheeda Bhagat

Another sting operation reveals more of the seamy side of Indian politics. In the US, President Bush's ratings are at an all-time low. And it is perhaps through Harold Pinter's mirror that one can begin to understand how politicians operate with a "series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and, therefore, of the public". Rasheeda Bhagat comments.

THE Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr Somnath Chatterjee, has his hands full. Even before the inquiry into the Operation Duryodhan sting is complete, he has to probe another scam.

Our MPs continue to reaffirm people's already low opinion of politicians. This time around, seven more — five of them from the Lok Sabha — have been caught in another sting operation carried out by Star News and Detective Intelligence Guild. These MPs were shown accepting kickbacks for doling out contracts for the Local Area Development scheme for which each MP gets an annual allocation of Rs 2 crore.

This time, three of the accused seven are BJP MPs. In Operation Duryodhan, carried out by cobrapost.com and Aaj Tak channel, the BJP had shared the honours with the BSP, with three `stung' MPs each. The other four MPs in the latest operation, christened Operation Chakravyuh, belong to the Congress(I), the Bahujan Samaj Party, Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Kranti Dal.

Interestingly, the BJP MP, Mr Chandra Pratap Singh, caught on camera in the previous cash-for-questions sting operation, is also in the eye of this new storm, where an intermediary is shown demanding money on his behalf.

The Congress(I) MP, Mr Churchil Alemao, former Chief Minister of Goa, turned suspicious after two meetings where he demanded a commission of Rs 2 lakh for the contract, and threatened to check the bags of the undercover reporters during the third meeting, at which point they hastily left the scene.

To his credit the Samajwadi Party MP, Toofan Saroj, turned out to be the only honest one, refusing to discuss or accept any `commission'. Actually, even in Operation Duryodhan, one Congress(I) MP, Chaudhry Brijendra Singh, from Aligarh, refused to take money and even showed the woman reporter and her male colleague the door.

In an interview to DNA, Mr Brijendra Singh said that she offered him Rs 50,000. "But when she reached inside her pocket, he stood up and ordered her out, saying, `I'm a public sector man. Mujhe janata se vote bhi milti hai, aur note bhi. I don't need this kind of bribe money'."

Strangely, the sting operators did not disclose this information, which was made public by Mr Singh himself, who lost little time in relating the incident first to Rahul Gandhi and then to the Congress(I) chief, Ms Sonia Gandhi, who appreciated his honesty.

The series of sting operations is going to lead to a cooling of the cosy relationship between journalists and politicians, at least for some time. Last week, Aaj Tak carried a report on how one of the `stung' MPs called a press conference, where he first asked the Aaj Tak reporter to leave the room and then started abusing journalists.

What followed were several rounds of exchange of fire — journalists accusing politicians of being corrupt and the MP heaping all kinds of charges on journalists.

It is nobody's case that the media and mediapersons are free from corruption. Perhaps one of these days an enraged politician might sponsor a sting operation against one or more corrupt journalists and then the legislators will have the last laugh.

From the kind of stories that circulate on the media grapevine on corruption among journalists, this may not be too difficult! Meanwhile, the image of politicians continues to get dimmer, not only at home, but elsewhere too.

US politics

Not just in India, even in the US politicians are not quite popular right now. For instance, the US President, Mr George W. Bush's approval ratings continue to remain low. Even the successful election in Iraq has not helped much. A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll conducted over the weekend pegged his approval rating at 41 per cent, with 56 per cent disapproving of the manner in which the President was handling his job. While 52 per cent said it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, 61 per cent disapproved of the way he was handling Iraq.

But the latest row over Mr Bush's domestic spying venture has left a lot of people seething. He has, of course, sought to justify it — as he justifies everything else, including the attack on Iraq — saying that such surveillance is necessary "to protect the American people from the threat of terrorism".

But the irony is that in a bid to justify this claim, the civil liberties of the nation that claims to set the highest score by the individual's privacy and freedom are being highly compromised.

This has led to an even greater controversy around the reauthorisation of what is called the USA Patriot Act, a broad anti-terrorism law that gave the President sweeping powers after 9/11. Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat, pointed out: "Bush is a president, not a king."

Mr Bush himself, who is furious that the information on domestic spying had been leaked, is pushing for an investigation into how this secret programme was disclosed. At a hastily convened press conference he said, justifying the operation: "A two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to the Al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives."

But despite the furore in the US at the disclosure that the government was spying on its own people by tapping phones and other surveillance measures, the fact remains that Mr Bush did win the election, the mess created by a totally unjustified war in Iraq, notwithstanding.

And so was the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, a close friend and ally of Mr Bush, returned to office last year by the British people.

Pinter's speech

Politicians, in India, the US or the UK, brush off everything — charges of corruption, unjustified military aggression — saying that their ultimate reward or punishment comes from the people during an election.

But electoral victories do not wash away everything; and razor-sharp intellects and deep sensitivities and sensibilities in your own people have a way of tearing off masks and exposing truth.

One had tucked away the Nobel Prize speech of noted litterateur Harold Pinter to be read at a later date, till reminded of its incisiveness by a newspaper columnist last week. In his brilliant speech, Mr Pinter holds forth on the difference between what is true and what is untrue; what is real and what is unreal.

As expected, he comments on the invasion of Iraq too and calls it "a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law.

The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and, therefore, of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading as liberation.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it `bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'."

Wondering how many people one needs to kill to deserve the title of a mass murderer or war criminal, Mr Pinter asks: "One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought.

Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London."

The sting operations against politicians pale into insignificance compared to stinging exposures such as this. But, then, the Nobel Laureate concluded his speech with something all of us need to do.

He said: "When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror — for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us."

Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line