I saw CPI General Secretary Mr. A. B. Bardhan defend his party's decision to support Mrs Patil's candidature on CNN-IBN Live. But rather than defending her in face of the charges raised, he explained his party's decision thus:
1) She's a woman.
2) It does not matter what her personal beliefs are. After all, the president can not make any policy decision. (Mrs. Pratibha Patil's plans of not being a rubber stamp President are sadly vanquished, let it be known to her.) So she doesn't need to recant her decision as the Health Minister in 1975 to forcibly sterilize people with hereditary disorders like heart diseases, diabetes, and even poor eyesight, etc. Or that she talks to dead people.
3) There are so many corrupt people in Congress and even more in BJP, the party that is raising allegations against Mrs. Pratibha Patil.
4) He's sure that when she becomes President she'll not claim that she's talking to dead people.
How is he sure about that when she did the same few weeks back? 'Because as a President she'll have to follow the policy laid down by the government.' Implicit in the argument, I suppose, was the assertion that a policy will be laid down by the government that the President shall not talk to dead people and if he/she does so, he/she will not declare that in public.
Some days later, Mr. Karan Thapar interviewed BJP spokesperson Mr. Rajnath Singh with accusations against the other Presidential candidate, Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.
1) He was suspended for taking bribe as sub-inspector in 1947.
2) He defended his son-in-law when he was accused of trying to obtain compensation for land which he did not own.
3) He lied on the floor of assembly.
4) He quashed cases against him when he was the Chief Minister of Rajasthan.
5) He was an MLA in Rajasthan from 1952 to 1972, and from 1977 to 2002. Still he managed to be a Rajya Sabha member from MP in between, which indicates false declaration of domicile.
To all these charges, Mr. Rajnath Singh's reply was that looking his public life from 1952 to 2002, no one can accuse Mr Bhairon Singh Shekhawat of dishonesty. He repeated this every time an allegation was made. Then Mr. Karan Thapar proceeded to prove that Mr. Arun Shourie's book that purportedly proved that Mrs. Pratibha Patil was in fact guilty of all crimes that she was accused of, was full of 'concoctions and deliberate lies.' Karan Thapar had interviewed Mr. Arun Shourie few days back in which he had agreed with and endorsed virtually every piece of 'researched allegation'. During the interview with Mr. Bardhan, every allegation against Mrs. Patil seemed to be the truth. During the interview with Mr. Rajnath Singh, the same allegations seemed to be 'concocted lies'.
So after watching the three interviews I wonder if it is at all possible to know anything with reasonable certainty. When senior journalists like Karan Thapar can't get their facts right before interviewing someone how is the aam aadmi expected to verify authenticity of allegations and counter-allegations. All we can do is to gorge up sound bytes from the media without being able to distinguish right from wrong, truth from lie. In the end, may be Mr. Bardhan was right. How the hell does it matter who the President is, what his/her beliefs are, whether he/she is honest or not - after all is it even possible to find a prominent politician who's not done anything unethical or immoral? As long as we can prove to the world the changing position of woman in Indian society by electing a woman as President, we'll be just fine.
1) She's a woman.
2) It does not matter what her personal beliefs are. After all, the president can not make any policy decision. (Mrs. Pratibha Patil's plans of not being a rubber stamp President are sadly vanquished, let it be known to her.) So she doesn't need to recant her decision as the Health Minister in 1975 to forcibly sterilize people with hereditary disorders like heart diseases, diabetes, and even poor eyesight, etc. Or that she talks to dead people.
3) There are so many corrupt people in Congress and even more in BJP, the party that is raising allegations against Mrs. Pratibha Patil.
4) He's sure that when she becomes President she'll not claim that she's talking to dead people.
How is he sure about that when she did the same few weeks back? 'Because as a President she'll have to follow the policy laid down by the government.' Implicit in the argument, I suppose, was the assertion that a policy will be laid down by the government that the President shall not talk to dead people and if he/she does so, he/she will not declare that in public.
Some days later, Mr. Karan Thapar interviewed BJP spokesperson Mr. Rajnath Singh with accusations against the other Presidential candidate, Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.
1) He was suspended for taking bribe as sub-inspector in 1947.
2) He defended his son-in-law when he was accused of trying to obtain compensation for land which he did not own.
3) He lied on the floor of assembly.
4) He quashed cases against him when he was the Chief Minister of Rajasthan.
5) He was an MLA in Rajasthan from 1952 to 1972, and from 1977 to 2002. Still he managed to be a Rajya Sabha member from MP in between, which indicates false declaration of domicile.
To all these charges, Mr. Rajnath Singh's reply was that looking his public life from 1952 to 2002, no one can accuse Mr Bhairon Singh Shekhawat of dishonesty. He repeated this every time an allegation was made. Then Mr. Karan Thapar proceeded to prove that Mr. Arun Shourie's book that purportedly proved that Mrs. Pratibha Patil was in fact guilty of all crimes that she was accused of, was full of 'concoctions and deliberate lies.' Karan Thapar had interviewed Mr. Arun Shourie few days back in which he had agreed with and endorsed virtually every piece of 'researched allegation'. During the interview with Mr. Bardhan, every allegation against Mrs. Patil seemed to be the truth. During the interview with Mr. Rajnath Singh, the same allegations seemed to be 'concocted lies'.
So after watching the three interviews I wonder if it is at all possible to know anything with reasonable certainty. When senior journalists like Karan Thapar can't get their facts right before interviewing someone how is the aam aadmi expected to verify authenticity of allegations and counter-allegations. All we can do is to gorge up sound bytes from the media without being able to distinguish right from wrong, truth from lie. In the end, may be Mr. Bardhan was right. How the hell does it matter who the President is, what his/her beliefs are, whether he/she is honest or not - after all is it even possible to find a prominent politician who's not done anything unethical or immoral? As long as we can prove to the world the changing position of woman in Indian society by electing a woman as President, we'll be just fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment