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'.
