The 'TAINT' and 'CORRUPTION' - The 'TAINT' and 'CORRUPTION' Hypocrisy of Politicians & Media

The 'TAINT' and 'CORRUPTION'

Hypocrisy of Politicians & Media

That Bharatiya Janata Party National President Nitin Gadkari had to quit on grounds of 'taint' and charges of 'corruption' against him. It is an internal matter of the Party. The common man is not concerned with it. The rightness or otherwise of the decision will be determined in the days and months to come when the Party faces the electorate in the important State assemblies of Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka and the like later this year.

But what does the 'taint' and 'corruption' stand for? It cannot be the exclusive monopoly of the media and the politicians to brand anybody they oppose as 'tainted' or 'corrupt'. It is the same situation as is with 'secularism' and 'communalism'.  Every politician and political party claims itself to be 'secular' and, at will, dubs opponent as 'communal'. To a great extent the same is true with 'tainted' and 'corrupt'.

Our media and politicians have adopted different norms and standards to brand people and organizations as 'communal' and 'corrupt'. There is no denying the fact that the late Rajiv Gandhi was, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, involved in the Bofors scam. Successive police investigations failed to nail his involvement yet the fact remains that the `64-crore Bofors corruption case was a reality although everybody involved got scot free.

Similarly, the 1984 anti-Sikh riots were communal in all its hue and for all intents and purposes. Sikhs are a minority community. Everybody recognizes this fact. In the aftermath of the unfortunate assassination of late prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1984, more than 5,000 Sikhs – and Sikhs alone – were killed (more than 3,000 in Delhi alone) only in Congress-ruled States all over the country. In States with non-Congress regimes the Sikhs remained safe and protected. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi himself justified the pogrom saying "when a big tree falls the earth shakes".  Yet, he remains the icon of 'secularism'.

 

There are numerous leaders who are facing criminal charges in various courts – like fodder scam, murder, rape, extortion, assets beyond known sources of income and corruption. RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav is facing criminal charges for his alleged involvement in fodder scam. BSP supremo Ms Mayawati and SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav are facing criminal cases for allegedly having accumulated assets beyond known sources of income. Aam Aadmi Party's Arvind Kejriwal had leveled charges not only against Mr. Nitin Gadkari but also against present Himachal chief minister Virbhadra Singh, 15 Union ministers including Prime Minister. The latter is involved in Coal scam too. Mr. Kejriwal has also levelled charges, more serious in nature than against Mr.  Gadkari also against Mrs. Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra. Yet, the media and politicians have reserved the epithet 'tainted' and 'corrupt' only for Gadkari and not against all those similarly placed and involved. Why? Can they explain it? 

The media is no exception. It too is not free from similar allegations. The Election Commission of India has expressed concern over allegations of paid news against certain newspapers and news channels. It has characterized this new phenomenon as a crime and threat to the spirit of  freedom of press. There is a case involving alleged extortion against a news channel. But, surprisingly, nobody uses the words 'tainted' and 'corrupt' against these members of the Fourth Estate. 

When certain Union ministers in Manmohan government were facing serious charges involving heinous crimes, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Congress took the stand that nobody can be held guilty unless he has been declared so by any court of law. But, in the case of leaders in the opposition the Congress stand is quite the opposite. 

Do double standards enhance the credibility of  our politicians and the media and promote country's good?