Supreme Court under siege

It is distressing that there is a complaint against the Chief Justice of India that he had misbehaved with a lady Junior Court Assistant. Even as it is too premature to comment on the credibility or otherwise of the complaint, it is evident that the CJI is terribly upset. Under such immense psychological pressure, one is apt to make misjudgments. This is particularly sad because the function of a judge is to arrive at judgments.

The details provided by the complainant indicate that the CJI trained and even mentored her to become a better-informed and socially a more friendly person. He is said to have called her and texted her on many occasions before October 10th and 11th, 2018. These dates are relevant because the accusation is that the CJI misbehaved with her on these days.

The complainant has forwarded appeals against her harassment to the Delhi Commission of Women, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Anil Baijal, the Prime Minister’s Office, the National Human Rights Commission, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Special Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The appeal contains elaborate and date-wise details. If the complaint is false, then some expert must have prepared it and made it cogent.

It is too early to conclude if the complaint is genuine or as some claim is intended to preclude the CJI from pronouncing judgments in some politically sensitive cases.
“The allegations regarding 11 October 2018, as well as other allegations, are completely and absolutely false and scurrilous and are totally denied,” according to the secretary-general of the Supreme Court.

Pressure is telling on the Supreme Court. Without hearing the complainant, the judges who sat in the Court on April 20, a holiday, characterised the complaint as "wild and scandalous." The judges asked the media to exercise restraint and remove such material which is undesirable. Acute embarrassment is writ large in these words.

Indian politics and judiciary are facing one crisis after another. If a citizen anxiously wonders if we are capable of governing ourselves, we need not be surprised.

Anil Ambani and Rafale contract

The French newspaper, Le Monde (literally meaning 'The World'), has reported that a telecom company of Anil Ambani received the benefit of waiver of tax dues from the French government during the time the Indian government considered placing orders for Rafale jets.

It needs to be investigated if Anil Ambani was lobbying with the Indian government on behalf of Dassault and if the tax waiver is a reward for bagging the contract. Has Narendra Modi bent over backwards to help Anil Ambani?

If  Le Monde's version of linking the waiver and the Rafale contract is correct, it will be a big slur on Narendra Modi.

Contradictions / insinuations in N.Ram's 'exclusive'

Shri N.Ram continues to exercise his proprietorial liberty to foist his 'exclusive' Rafale reports on The Hindu readers, frontpaging his innuendoes and rehashing his exaggerated spins on confidential notes prepared in the Defence Ministry. He has mastered the art of contradicting one insinuation made by him and creating another hoping that if one does not stick, the other would.

I express my views with both anguish and anxiety, anguished by the fall of a reliable newspaper into a purveyor of partisan news and perverted views, anxious to know how the other family members (after all, The Hindu is family-owned despite the occasional veneer of professionalism) continue to allow the newspaper to be hijacked for political purposes.

In his 'exclusive' on April 9th, Ram points out the similarities between Rafale transaction and Bofors deal. He fails to point out the major dissimilarities, namely the absence of money trail in Rafale as against the bribery-based Bofors deal and Chitra Subramaniam-guided Bofors investigation as against sycophants-assisted misplaced investigation into Rafale agreement.

In one place, Ram discovers the 'discomfort' of Manohar Parikkar 'evidenced' by the latter's reference to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for approval of deviations from the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) instead of approving them himself. Ram does not utilise his 'investigative' skills to discover why P.Chidambaram arrogated to himself the Cabinet powers in Aircel-Maxis case. It is journalism turned on its head when investigations are avoided when they are needed and undertaken when there is no reason. These two instances bring out the difference between Modi and Manmohan as a leader. Ministers in Modi's ministry are not afraid of seeking the Cabinet approval when necessary whereas in Manmohan's ministry there was licence to do anything so long as Manmohan was not brought into the scene. Manmohan Singh explained this as coalition-dharma.

In another place, in sharp contrast, Ram insinuates as to why Parikkar did not refer to CCS for approval of deviations though they had earlier been approved by CCS in a different reference. Ram's incoherent and slanted investigation is amusing.

Ram is aware and has noted that 'offset' is usually rendered in French as 'contrepartie' (compensation). Yet his prejudiced mind forces Ram to cynically observe that an internal Dassault document revealed that "a senior executive of the French group told staff representatives that the joint venture with Reliance was agreed as a 'compensation' ".

I don't know how many people read these 'exclusive' reports. I am eager to know if even Ram is reading the reports which are possibly prepared by his assistants with the only objective of derailing Modi.

The Hindu's disbelief of the Indian government

The Hindu's Readers' Editor, in his sermon on April 8,  has  preferred to give greater credence to a report appearing in an American magazine 'Foreign Policy' than to the version of the Indian government on India shooting down an F-16 employed by Pakistan. In an insinuating tone, he has noted that authorities tend to hide behind anonymity. "The Indian Air Force's version was circulated through the news agency IANS."

Fine. Source of credible information should not be anonymous. I assumed that since The Hindu has trusted the Foreign Policy report, the identity of persons who have concluded that India's version is wrong must have been disclosed.

The Foreign Policy report says. " Two senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the situation told Foreign Policy that U.S. personnel recently counted Islamabad’s F-16s and found none missing." Who are these two officials? The report does not divulge.

The report further adds, "One of the senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the count said that Pakistan invited the United States to physically count its F-16 planes after the incident as part of an end-user agreement signed when the foreign military sale was finalized. " Who is this official?

The Hindu's policy seems to be that you can trust an anonymous report if it contradicts the Indian government. Otherwise, no. This is the consistency of jaundiced eyes.

Rafale and 2019 elections

The Hindu CSDS-Lokniti pre-poll survey conducted in the last week of March brings out an interesting aspect about the impact of Rafale allegations on popular perception.

52% of the people who are aware of Rafale transaction desire that NDA should get another chance at government. This is against only 39% among those who are not aware of the transaction.

What does this mean? Either the people are convinced about the genuineness and integrity of the transaction or the critics have done a bad job of analysing the transaction.

Will The Hindu take note of this curious finding and stop misinterpreting the transaction? Or will the newspaper stop supporting CSDS-Lokniti?