Of fixers and retainers

A couple of weeks back, a friend of 30 years called up. I was a trifle intrigued because he rarely bothers calling though we live and work in the same town. The friend, who is now the vice president of a leading Indian corporate with interests in the lucrative mining sector in Orissa, started by asking about a prominent RTI activist of the state and my relationship with him. I said I had the best of relations with this activist.
It was only after this that the purpose of his call became clear. [I now wonder if corporate types ever make a courtesy call to anybody, including friends from the student days.] The said activist was apparently proving to be a thorn in his company’s designs to mine iron ore without being shackled by irritants like mining and forest laws by filing RTI application after RTI application on the company’s illegal operations. The friend bragged that he had managed to hold up an answer to the RTI query so far by pulling the right strings, but was then quick to concede that he could not postpone the inevitable for eternity. Coming to the ‘business’ end of the talk, he asked if I could have a ‘chat’ with this activist to make him desist from going after the company: in short, if I could ‘fix’ him.
I tried to reason with him saying this activist friend comes from a very rich family and hence is not amenable to monetary inducements; that he is in it for the love of it and not to cut deals with corporates. But the friend was skeptical and persisted with his proposal for a meeting. For good measure, he added that we could meet before the meeting with the activist and work out some ‘arrangement’ – not just for this particular case but a ‘long term’ one.
I was struck by the sheer audacity of the proposal. Here was a friend, who knows me for three decades, actually offering me a bribe to ‘fix’ a troublesome activist. I could understand his firm belief that the activist is up for sale since he does not know him personally. But how could he even think of proposing to buy me off to do his bidding? I felt like giving him a mouthful and banging the phone on him. But I could do nothing of the sort and told him, sheepishly and vaguely, that we would meet ‘one of these days’.
Despite my timidity in telling him on his face what I thought of his ‘business proposal’, I guess this friend of mine got enough hints about my discomfiture with the whole idea and I doubt if he would really go ahead and arrange a meeting. But you never know. In the shameless world that corporate India has become, every senior execuitve is convinced that everybody and everything has a price tag.
If the proposed meeting does come about, I have little doubt that it would be at one of the many swanky hotels of the town, where the booze and food bill for two could be upwards of Rs. 2, 000. I also know for sure that my good friend will not be paying this amount from his pocket. All corporates have a specific ‘head’ to account for such ‘miscellaneous’ expenses.
That the amount in question is small change for a leading corporate house goes without saying. But two years ago, I learnt the hard way that there are no ‘heads’ in the company’s books to account for even this measly sum if it is for a cause less 'worthier' than giving a treat to a journalist. The occasion was a film festival organized by a film society, of which I am one of the founding members, in the town. I had gone to this very friend asking for a small sponsorship. Starting with Rs. 5, 000, I had scaled down my request to just Rs. 2, 000 in the end. But dozens of calls and several visits to his office later, I drew a blank.
I lost considerable face in the bargain as the other core members found it hard to believe that a journalist of my seniority and standing could not manage a sponsorship of a few thousand rupees, especially considering the fact that this vice president was a friend of mine. Some of them perhaps thought I did not try. Others doubted my standing in the pecking order.
Though I was mighty angry at the time when the friend made the indecent proposal to me, the anger has now dissipated and given way to a painful realisation that he could hardly be blamed for doing what he did. After all, aren’t there are many in my tribe - not just in Niira Radia’s Delhi, but in our very own Bhubaneswar - who do not have any compunction about putting themselves up for sale in the corporate or political bourse? There is this senior journalist of a major Odia newspaper, who is known to have ‘fixed’ mining leases for at least five companies and has now been rewarded with a palatial building in a posh area of the town for his ‘help’. Then there is this Young Turk, who has consistently and unabashedly batted for Vedanta, the company now in the docks, for the last couple of years. Indeed, it would not be a travesty of truth to say that the corporate and political fixers and retainers now outnumber those who play by the book.
In this dismal scenario, is there a hope in hell for the honest journalist? I believe there is because nobody – just nobody, no matter how powerful or rich s/he is - can force you to trade your integrity. All that one has to do is to resist the temptations for the good things in life, live within one’s means and occasionally endure the taunts of friends, family or well wishers for being a ‘good for nothing’. Is that such a big price to pay?

L'affaire Barkha, Vir

There are those who believe that publishing Niira Radia’s tapped conversations with star journalists Barkha Dutt, Vir Sanghvi and Prabhu Chawla et al crossed the line of ‘media ethics’ since they were not given a chance to defend themselves before going public. But I believe the exact opposite. It is the mainstream media – especially the so-called national English newspapers and TV channels - which has violated all norms of media ethics by maintaining a deafening silence over the whole affair. If they are convinced that ‘Outlook’ and ‘Open’ magazines did something unethical, nothing prevented them from publishing the tapes after giving a fair chance to these worthies to come out with their versions. In blacking out the story altogether, they have laid themselves open to the charge of a conspiracy of silence. I have absolutely no doubt that they would have pounced upon it and gone ahead with the mandatory ‘Breaking News’ tagline before others could lay their hands on it if only it had involved politicians or bureaucrats (or anybody else for that matter) instead of a few of their own. [By the way, just imagine asking Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi for their side of the story before publishing the transcripts of the tapes. Powerful people enjoying the whole-hearted support of the ruling dispensation that they are, they would have moved heaven and hearth to kill the story in the womb!! ]

The point to note about the Radia tapes is that none of the dramatis personae from the media fraternity have seriously questioned their authenticity, though Vir Sanghvi did allude - rather feebly, I would say – to the fact that even the magazine (Open) did not vouch for their authenticity.

Now, let us consider the explanations tendered by Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi. Barkha’s contention is that her conversation with Radia was part of the legitimate news gathering activity of a journalist. But a careful hearing of the tapes (or a careful reading of the transcripts) makes it difficult to buy this argument. She does appear to be taking more interest in the Congress-DMK deal making than is normal for a journalist . Just two excerpts from the conversation will suffice. “Oh god! So, now what should I tell them? Tell me”, she says at one point. The context is TR Baalu playing spoilsport by going public with his comments. At another point, she says; “I know. We have taken that off”, in the background of Dayanidhi Maran going around telling people that he was ‘the only acceptable person.’ Notice the use of ‘we’ here. She rounds it off by saying ‘Okay. Let me talk to them again”. This is after Niira tells her; “Congress needs to tell Karunanidhi that we have not said anything about Maran.” In trying to pass off these statements as part of normal journalistic activity, Barkha is stretching our credulity a little too far.

At worst, Barkha can be accused of acting as go-between in the Congress-DMK deal-making over the formation of the government. But Vir Sanghvi’s crime is enormous and unpardonable. Here is the Editor-in-Chief of The Hindustan Times actually taking briefs from a corporate lobbyist on what spin to give to his ‘must must read’ column. He does not stop at that. He promises the lobbyist to talk to her minion and get the final version vetted by her!! [Considering the said piece was on the pricing of a precious national resource like natural gas, it would perhaps not be wholly inappropriate to dub him the journalistic equivalent of A Raja!]
Barkha may still redeem herself. But I am afraid Vir is tainted for life. Given the criteria media barons use to choose their editors, it would not be surprising if a major newspaper or television channel hires his services in future. But I bet the readers will, from now on, always try and read between the lines and see what or whose agenda he is pushing in his writing – even when he is not actually doing so. A case in point is the reaction to the one piece that he has written after Radiagate broke – apart, of course, from the rather disjointed rejoinder - on Nov 20 on his website on the subject of the Prime Minister’s image crisis in the aftermath of the Spectrum scandal.

This, however, is only a self goal scored by Vir. But the greater damage that he has done is to the credibility of the media fraternity as a whole. If a journalist of his stature can act like a corporate lobbyist (and a family retainer of the Gandhis, one may add), who do the people trust? The trust deficit that he has created has made every journalist a suspect in the eyes of the viewers/readers.

A few words about the rejoinders furnished by Barkha and Vir here. For far too long, they have interpreted statements of others, read between the lines, deconstructed their body language, put things in context and added perspective to them for the benefit of the viewer/reader. Why don’t they, for a change, let the viewer/reader do all this in regard to their tapped conversations? After all, neither of them is denying the authenticity of the tapes. Or do they think the viewer/reader is too dumb to do what is their exclusive preserve?

Politicianspeak

The provocation for this piece was the almost identical and entirely predictable responses of two of the highest constitutional functionaries – Honurable Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Honourable Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik – to two different judicial pronouncements made during the day. While the Supreme Court questioned the PM’s 15-month long silence on Dr. Subramaniam Swamy’s plea asking for permission to prosecute ‘Spectrum’ Raja, the Orissa High Court quashed the land acquisition for the proposed Vedanta University, delivering a body blow to CM Naveen Patnaik, who moved heaven and earth to get the project going. But the reactions were not different at all. Both of them said “Let us first study what the Court has actually said”, though in the PM’s case, it was the Congress spokesperson rather than the PM himself who reacted.

Here is a compilation of what the politician, when confronted with particular situations, says and what s/he actually means.

Situation: When rapped on the knuckles by the court
What the politician says: "Let us first study the judgment"
What s/he actually means: "I am too embarrassed to react."

Situation:When confronted with a serious charge
What the politician says: "The law will take its course."
What s/he actually means: "I will make sure that the law will never take its course."

Situation: When facing a serious charge in court
What the politican says: "I have full faith in the judiciary."
What s/he actually means: "I have full faith in my team of lawyers."

Situation: When exonerated by a court
What the politician says: "I have been vindicated."
What s/he actually means: "My battery of lawyers was better than yours."

Situation:While campaigning during an election
What the politician says: "I will work for the poor and the down-trodden."
Whats/he actually means: "I will work to make sure that the poor and the down trodden remain poor and down trodden."

Situation: When caught with his/her pants/panties down in a sting operation
What the politician says: "The tape is doctored."
What s/he actually means: "Who is the bast... who did this to me?"

Situation: When confronted with a scandal
What the politician says: "My conscience is clear."
What s/he actually means: "Yeh ‘conscience’ kis chidiya ka naam hai?"

Situation: When laying the foundation stone for an industry
What the politician says: "The plant will bring prosperity for the local people."
What s/he actually means: "This plant will bring prosperity for the industry, me and my party and misery for the local people."

Situation: When demanding a salary hike
What the politician says: "Do you know how much an MLA/MP has to spend to ‘attend to’ his constituency?"
What s/he actually means: "If you knew how much I have to spend to attend to my constituency, the income tax people would be after me."

Situation: When caught on camera hobnobbing with shady characters
What the politician says: "As a politician, I keep meeting so many people every day. Is it possible to verify the antecedents of everybody?"
What s/he actually means: "The next time, I will be more careful."

Situation: When faced with a no confidence motion
What the politician says: "I have the support of the majority in the House."
What s/he actually means: "I have all the money and I am sure I can buy the required number of votes to prove my majority in the House."

PS: This is only a sampling. You are free to add to it.