Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

Saturday, May 9, 2015



By Amba Charan Vashishth

Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister Mrs. Smriti Irani stoutly stood her ground when she was charged with "saffronisation" of education and packing academic bodies with "Hindutva scholars". She "tore into opposition" as the media put it, and pointed out that even leftists and others were also there. But their criticism of her does raise some questions.
India is a great country whose diversity is a great asset and it also contributes to unity because the nation is uppermost in everyone's heart. Our 'secularists' speak of 'composite culture' and 'inclusive approach'. This should, in the normal course, include every section of people, every thought, every opinion and every way of life, to the exclusion of none. But when it comes to those  working and fighting for the nation and are nationalists to the core in their heart, mind, word and action, they become "saffron" and to a great extent, untouchable to this 'exclusive' class of 'secular-liberals'.  That is why, whether it was the earlier NDA government of Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee or the present one under Shri Narendra Modi, saffron is the colour that irritates their eyes the most like pepper. "Saffronisation, saffronisation" is the shout with which they sore their throat.
There is no gainsaying the fact that by their acts, behaviour and opinion the 'secular-liberal' people suffer from a superiority complex which, in reality, is construed as the inferiority complex. Whatever it is, the practitioners of fascism are not ready to hark the other view. They are self-centered and self-righteous for whom everybody else is a fool if he doesn't agree with them. The traits of these self-righteous people are disrespectful to the point of view different or opposite to theirs. This behaviour is antagonistic to the spirit of democracy which is rule by majority opinion.  It is risky to say that they are sticklers to the rule of law and the Constitution.  
With their stand the 'secularists'  exhibit their scorn for the highest court of the country, the Supreme Court, which has ruled that Hinduism/Hindutva is not a religion but a way of life. It found nothing obnoxious with the concept.  By presenting Hindutva in bad light, they are injuring and insulting the very soul of India. Yet, to them, Hinduism and Hindutva remain offensive and detestable but those convicted or involved in heinous crimes like murder, rape and corruption are pious souls who must be welcomed with open arms and heart.  For them the blood of crime and corruption is thicker than water. Just a few recent instances.
Lalu Prasad Yadav stands convicted and sentenced to five years of jail on having been found guilty of corruption. He has been divested of his membership of Parliament.
Within two weeks of his being granted bail by the Supreme Court, the then Congress-led UPA government appointed Binayak Sen on the board of one of the steering committees of the Planning Commission to give inputs for 12th Plan on health related issues. Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of treason.
Mrs. Teesta Setalvad was decorated with Padmashree in "social service" category by the UPA government. The 'social service' she rendered is known to everybody. The only merit in her is that she has always been crying wolf against the then Gujarat chief minister Shri Narendra Modi. It is also well known that she is facing criminal charges for having swindled crores of rupees she collected from people within and abroad for Gujarat riot victims.

These individuals and many more are the blue-eyed boys of the 'secular-liberals' and those promoting the spirit of nationalism are, for them, 'criminals' who must be kept miles away from every forum.                                      ***

Thursday, January 24, 2013

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


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?

Friday, December 21, 2012


A very fine, thin, and negligibly indistinguishable line not visible to the naked eye divides corruption and lobbying. It is like gambling which is considered as a crime, punishable when played in private or public places and an elite glamourous pastime, not punishable and in a way out of the purview of our criminal law when enjoyed in elite clubs.
The distinction between corruption and lobbying is as subtle and simple as between India and Bharat. It is a matter of how you try to look at it. The difference between the two pervades as much as it exists between the minuscule minority of those who feel proud to be Indians with a permissive, chalta hai, liberal and 'secular' attitude and those orthodox simpleton natives of Bharat for whom crime and corruption are nothing else but crime and corruption in whatever manifestation. For the former the splurge of gifts, their size and cost depending upon the clout one has in political and administrative circles, is a civilized way of rejuvenating lasting relationship with friends in need. For the latter, it is rank corruption. For the first the act of adultery is a consensual sex between two consenting adults and for the second it is a crime.
Lobbying, practiced with immunity in western democracies like USA and UK is known as "the practice of individuals and organisations trying to influence the opinions of MPs and Lords. Methods of lobbying vary and can range from sending letters, making presentations, providing briefing material to Members and organised rallies." (
That money is used in this practice (or crime) of lobbying is proved by the admission of the Global retail giant Wal-Mart — waiting for years to open its supermarkets in India.
According to lobbying disclosure reports filed by Wal-Mart with the 
US Senate, the company has spent close to $25 million (about Rs 125 crore) since 2008 on its various lobbying activities, including on the issues related to "enhanced market access for investment in India". (

Under the Prevention of Corruption Act in India corruption means: "Taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act" or "Taking gratification in order to influence public servant, by corrupt or illegal means…..Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant".
The colossal amount of Rs. 125 crores was spent by Wal-Mart for "various lobbying activities, including on the issue related to 'enhanced market access for investment in India" does fall, if not in full, in part, in the category of taking "gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, and "taking gratification in order to influence public servant, by corrupt or illegal means" as per the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act in India.
Since huge money is involved, it clearly follows that it was used as a "gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, and "taking gratification in order to influence public servant, by corrupt or illegal means". And it must be kept in mind that ministers in government have been declared as "public servants" by the Supreme Court of India. It is not equally unreasonable to infer that a part of this money was used to "influence" some political parties.
But Information Broadcasting Minister Mr. Manish Tiwari says: "How can you be certain that lobbying automatically translates into illegal gratification? There is nothing to suggest either in jurisprudence or otherwise that the term lobbying is synonymous with illegal gratification.
We can evade the real issue by taking a purely legalistic view that Indian law recognizes it as a crime or no crime. But what matter is the general perception of the people on an issue or act and not what our law may or may not provide.
It is just like trying to play down the act of adultery as consensual sex between two consenting adults, an act which for all intents and purposes is a sin in the eyes of the aam aadmi.

Sunday, July 29, 2012


No crime if life is "private and personal"?

On July 27, 2012 a Delhi court announced the DNA test report on the paternity dispute filed by Rohit Shekhar: "Tiwari is reported to be the biological father of Rohit Shekhar and Ujjwala Sharma is reported to be the biological mother".
This has put at rest the long battle Rohit Shekhar waged to establish his paternity. After the verdict Shekhar said: "I am not the illegitimate son, he is my illegitimate father".
But the most interesting has been the reaction of both the 87-year old Congress veteran and the Congress Party itself. Within 15 minutes of the DNA test report being out in Delhi, Mr. Tiwari reiterated his "full faith in the judiciary".  In a written statement issued at Dehradun the same day he said: "I would like to clarify that this is a fight of egos and selfishness of both parties". One party is the mother-sun duo, who is the second party?
"I have always avoided controversies", Mr. Tiwari went on. "Due to my simplicity, people close to me have victimized me through a conspiracy in my advanced age". Mind the words "simplicity" and "victimized".
Expressing his "sympathy for Rohit Shekhar" saying he has "no complaint against him", he deliberately avoided speaking about his mother Ujjwala.
Reiterating his "every right to live my private life according to my rules", he has a piece of advice to the media: "Please do not hype this issue unnecessarily…it is not right to interfere in the personal life of a person". He concludes with a sacred promise: "Till my last breath, I'll be committed to India's development".
In his reaction Congress spokesperson Rashid Alvi said: "We should not talk about somebody's personal issue like this. The party has nothing to do with it". (
There is a grain of truth – and irony – in Mr. Shekhar's statement that "I am not the illegitimate son, he is my illegitimate father".  Every individual – Mr. Tiwari included – has a right to his "private and personal life" as long as it does not infringe the social, cultural and legal ethos of the caste, community, region and the country one belongs.  He is not an ordinary individual; he is a Congress veteran who had been chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and later of Uttarakhand five times, besides holding constitutional posts like that of governor and a union minister for pretty long. He enjoyed physical relations and conjugal rights with a woman not his legally-wedded wife even while his legally wedded spouse was alive alive. That does violate the law of the land and, therefore, the matter becomes public.
Surprisingly, for political considerations neither the Human Rights Commission nor the National Commission for Women thought it fit to interfere in Ujjwala Sharma's case which they knew was highly combustible inferno.
To expect moral values from today's politicians is like running after catching hold of a golden goose. Yet, even if it is somebody's "private and personal life" he wishes to lead "according to my rules", it does impact the life of the people around him, those who vote for him, who make him occupy high public offices at public cost and, above all, the society he is part of .
Whatever right or wrong Mr. Tiwari may have committed if taken to its logical conclusion, then any wrong or crime, including corruption, a politician or even a bureaucrat commits is a part of his "private and personal life" because any material benefit he derives is for his personal self and not for the public. Every murder has a motive and the one committed by a minister or bureaucrat has a "private and personal" angle and, therefore, even if directly or indirectly connected with his public and official duty, the motive is only "private and personal".
Mr. A. Raja, Mr. Kalmadi and the like are facing charges of corruption. Any money they may have changed hands did not go to the public exchequer but to the private pockets. Therefore, how are they officially responsible? By the corollary of Mr. Tiwari's stand, the media should refrain from creating an unnecessary "hype" and "it is not right to interfere in the personal life of a person".
We Indians boast of being morally very high. But when we are caught in a compromising position, we shout from our housetop: It's our private and personal life in which the people have no right to pierce through.
The "private and personal life" theory could also be further stretched to claim innocence if a father kills his son and vice versa or one of the spouses kills the other because that too is a "private and personal life" of the individuals. The French embassy official who has recently been hauled up for rape of his 3-year daughter too could claim it his "private and personal life".
On the other hand, in western countries politicians and public men whom we consider morally and culturally very inferior, do not invoke the shield of "private and personal life" to conceal or justify their misconduct.
When Profumo scandal burst out in UK about three decades back, he simply resigned. When US President Bill Clinton got involved in Monica Lewinski scandal, he faced the impeachment proceedings but did not cry hoarse: It's my private and personal life.
Recently, as a Republican candidate for 2012 elections Sarah Palin was emerging a serious challenge to US President President Obama, but some scandals came to light of her sexual escapades.  She finally withdrew herself from the contest but did not raise her voice to say: It's my private and personal life.
It also remains a mystery: how many lives do our politicians and bureaucrats have?

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

हास्य-व्यंग: उनसे ही पूछ पिता चाहते तो आरुषि हत्या की जांच भी न होती?

हास्य-व्यंग: उनसे ही पूछ  
पिता चाहते तो आरुषि हत्या की जांच भी न होती?

बेटा:   पिताजी।
पिता:  हाँ बेटा।
बेटा:   हमारे सेनाध्यक्ष जनरल सिंह ने हमारे रक्षा मंत्री श्री एंटनी को बताया था कि एक मामले में एक व्यक्ति ने उन्हें 14 करोड़ रुपए की घूँस देने की पेशकश की थी।
पिता:  यह तो बेटा बड़े शर्म की बात है। हमारी सेना पर हमें नाज़ है। यहाँ पहले ऐसा कभी नहीं होता था।
बेटा:   पर यह तो हमारे कानून के अनुसार अपराध नहीं है?
पिता:  बिलकुल है बेटा। घोर अपराध।
बेटा:   फिर श्री एंटनी ने उस पर कोई कार्यवाही क्यों नहीं की?
पिता:  बेटा, इसलिए कि एंटनी साहिब ने बताया है कि जनरल साहिब स्वयं इस पर कार्यवाही नहीं चाहते थे।
बेटा:   पर पिताजी यह तो अपराध का मामला था और उस पर तो कार्यवाही करने या न करने का उन्हें कोई ऐच्छिक अधिकार नहीं होना चाहिए था।
पिता:  पर बेटा एंटनी साहिब कहते है कि जनरल साहिब कार्यवाही नहीं चाहते थे।
बेटा:   अगर आरुषि के पिता भी चाहते कि उनकी बेटी की हत्या के अपराध पर भी कोई कार्यवाही न की जाए तो क्या पुलिस उस अपराध के मामले को भी वहीं ठप्प कर देती?
पिता:  बेटा, यह मुझे नहीं मालूम। तू उनसे ही पूछ।