The Leveson Report (contd.)

The link for the Leveson report is given below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-executive-summary?CMP=EMCNEWEML1355

It is seen that there is almost unanimous support for the recommendation that there must be an independent commission for ensuring that the press does not violate voluntarily agreed code of ethics. However, the suggestion that there must a statute providing legal recognition for the commission has already become controversial. The New York Times observes that any regulatory panel BACKED BY LAW is a big step in the wrong direction.

A very shrewd comment has been provided by Joel Simon, Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. He argues, "Adopting statutory regulation would undermine press freedom in the UK and give legitimacy for governments around the world that routinely silence journalists through such controls".

We can expect Manish Tewari and his ilk to draw wrong lessons from the report of Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson.

The Leveson Report

Lord Justice Leveson has just now presented his much-awaited report on the culture, practices and ethics of the British press. The presentation was organised with clockwork precision almost like a spacecraft launch.

He has explained the role of the press as one to inform, educate and entertain (I hope Justice Katju has noticed the entertainment part also). He expects the press to be unruly, opinionated and irreverent in performance of its duties.

Leveson has advocated the need for a statute to lend credibility to an independent self-regulator for the press. The report wants the self-regulatory body to be independent of newspaper editors, government and politicians. Expecting the impossible?

Similarity with the Indian situation becomes obvious when Leveson points out the slowness of criminal judicial process which is partly responsible for the outrageous behaviour of the press. Sensationalism of some parts of the press has rightly been condemned.

Lord Leveson is confident that his report will speak for itself. The 2000 page report would demand a lot of patience from the readers. Asserting that the press is the guardian of democratic values, he wonders who would guard the guardians. That is a million pound question.

R.P.Singh's revelations

R.P.Singh , former DG (P&T),CAG has rubbished the calculation of 'infamous' presumptive loss stated in the CAG report on the 2G (non-) scam. He is not the first person to nail the CAG report.

Kapil Sibal had proved beyond doubt that there was "zero loss". P.Chidambaram, as objective and uninfluenced as ever, disagreed with Sibal's zero-loss theory, but confirmed that there was no loss. (Please see 'Chidambaram Doctrine' in the post dt. 2nd Sept.,2012.)

It is unfortunate that despite such forceful arguments against the misleading report of the CAG, many unpatriotic Indians remain fastidious and continue to have trust in institutions like the CAG and the Supreme Court. We are indeed lucky that the signatory of the report himself has now condescended to clarify.

Though many of the interviews of R.P. (Responsible and Prudent) Singh have been reported in various newspapers, the following interview has perhaps deliberately been ignored by mischievous media and therefore I am forced to make it public.

"Interviewer: Sir, did you sign the so-called CAG Report on 2G Scam?
R.P.Singh: You may say so.

I: Sir, only you know whether you signed the report or not. Your answer creates a doubt in my mind. Did you or did you not sign the report?
R: You may infer I signed.

I: Is it not possible that someone forged your signature? (The interviewer had earlier covered the Salman Khurshid Trust where several signatures were apparently forged for the 'benefit of the differently-abled'.)
R: How do I know?

I (impressed by Singh's clarity): Sir, assuming for the sake of argument that the report was indeed signed by you since you had never denied it earlier, don't you agree with the contents of the report?
R: This is where you are making the mistake. I only signed the report. I am not responsible for the report's contents. In fact, I have not read the report.

I (amazed at Singh's honesty): Thank you, Sir. Are you saying you signed the report without ever reading it?
R: You may infer so.

I (remembering what Minister P.Chidambaram had earlier said -reported in the post dt.22nd Nov., 2010- clarifying that a minister may sign so many papers every day and you cannot expect him to read all that he signs): I understand, Sir. But some mischievous elements expect you to responsibly own what you have signed. Are they expecting too much?
R: You may say so.

I: Sir, I appreciate your candour. Can you tell us the circumstances under which you signed the report (of course, without applying your mind)?
R: How do you expect me to remember when I have signed so many papers. Since you are asking me I will tell you. I distinctly remember that one day (though I do not recollect the date, month or year) around 6.30 p.m., I was told that the report must be delivered to the Ministry of Finance the next day. I had no choice but to sign.

I: Were you not interested in knowing what you were signing?
R: Not at all. But I knew I was not signing my death-warrant.

I: Sir, one last question. In your long eventful career, did you ever read whatever you signed?
R: To the best of my knowledge, I never committed that cardinal mistake."

Bal Thackeray and Markandey Katju

Justice Katju has stated that he cannot pay a tribute to Bal Thackeray because of the latter's divisive politics. Thackeray's 'sons of the soil' theory militated against the country's Constitution and was unlawful. It ran counter to principles of federalism.

As Amartya Sen argues in "The Argumentative Indian", everyone has multiple identities. In addition to being a controversial politician Thackeray was also a creative cartoonist, a charismatic leader and a bold person who never minced words. Katju also has some Thackeray-like qualities in him: self-righteous, obstinate, intolerant of criticism, etc. We should judge a person by the combination of his qualities and not be prejudiced by just one aspect of personality.

Thackeray's creativity was exhibited through his cartoons, Katju's through his love for literature. The former vociferously supported inposition of emergency by Indira Gandhi. Though I don't know whether Katju had a similar liking for emergency, I believe he also must have been a votary of emergency to 'impose discipline'. Katju's views on the need for a third-party regulator for media support my belief.

Assuming that Katju was against emergency because it was anti-democratic, would he have abstained from paying a tribute to Indira Gandhi on account of this part of her personality?

Anyone, and particularly a judge, must abstain from forming a general opinion about a person on the basis of a single facet of the person's views or behaviour. Issue-based conclusion is the foundation on which impartial justice rests. I wonder what would have happened if a case against Bal Thackeray had gone before Justice Katju's Bench. Would he have recused himself because of his bias? Only Katju can answer.

Robert Vadra and Coal Block Auction

Coal Secretary is needlessly worried that coal blocks meant for auction have not received environmental clearances. He seems to be a babe in the woods. The situation suits Robert Vadra to a T. All that needs to be done is to sell the coal blocks to Rober Vadra. Out of patriotic instincts he will purchase the blocks so that government's fiscal deficit will ease.

Once the blocks are allotted to RV, green clearances will follow like night following day. RV will purchase at Rs.X and sell the same block after obtaining the green clearance at Rs.15X. Why not? He is an astute businessman. Just because he is someone's son-in-law, can we deny him his fundamental right to fleece the exchequer?

Which minister will refuse to give clearances for the sake of nation's son-in-law?

Wal-Mart and India

FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) forbids any company listed in USA from bribing anyone anywhere in the world. Wal-Mart is presently facing an enquiry regarding possible corrupt practices in Mexico. Wal-Mart also is conducting its own internal enquiry.

The company (world's largest retailer) is now extending its internal enquiry to cover Brazil, China and India. This indicates that corruption is not country-specific and is present across national borders.

There is however an interesting difference. Wal-Mart already has many of its retail outlets in Brazil and China. In India it has not yet been allowed to open shop. Therefore we learn that corruption precedes business in India whereas corruption only accompanies business in other countries.

"Future of India"

Haddows Road in Nungambakkam, Chennai is inundated with hoardings, banners and posters in praise of "King-maker", "Country's Breeze" (whatever it may mean), "Sivaganga's Simham", "Future of India" (God forbid), "Our Political Guru", etc. All these are in praise of, who else, Karthi P.Chidambaram, son of our Finance Minister. The occasion is celebration of his birth day on 16th November. Why this ostentation and why this sycophancy?

Needless to say, Jawaharlal Nehru whose birth day was on 14th November was all but forgotten save a few stray articles in some newspapers. Nehru never believed in developing a personality cult because he was impressive on his own as a thinker and a responsible patriotic citizen. The present generation of leaders and sub-leaders lack such desirable qualities and look for obsequious followers.