Category: Journalism

So, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks was finally arrested in London – on some old charges related to sex crime committed by him in Sweden. While it should be noted that the charges have once already been dropped in Sweden, the case was opened up again apparently because the US told Sweden, “Look, you don’t like him and we don’t like him. So can you please look if there’s something in the charges against him?”

And yet, for record, if he is guilty of the charges, he should most definitely be held guilty and severe punishment should be meted out to him.

But everything suggests that the urgency is because he is the Founder of WikiLeaks, which is struggling to stay afloat online in the wake of cyber attack and stalling from not just the US and some other governments, but also hackers sympathetic to those governments. Assagne’s account in Switzerland was frozen yesterday (December 6, 2010). And, supporters like PayPal, MasterCard have withdrawn support (via providing an outlet for WikiLeaks to receive donations) on the pretext of “WikiLeaks being engaged in an illegal act”.

Illegal act, really?

WikiLeaks says the release of the documents “reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.”

It further states that the cables “show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in “client states”; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.”

But in the United States, which is the principal target of WikiLeaks, legal experts would tell us that the sort of information that a news organization can be prosecuted for publishing is limited to: nuclear secrets (Atomic Energy Act), the identities of covert agents (Intelligence Identities Protection Act), and certain forms of communications intelligence (Section 798 of the Espionage Act).

Timothy Matusheski, a lawyer working with WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange, said, “They accuse him of breaking the law. But they haven’t said what law.”   Simply because there is none, as yet, to prosecute the WikiLeaks Founder in the US!

So then, can he be tried in any other country?

Why?

The only place he is hurting the most at the moment is USA; so what would make any other country want to prosecute him?

Tricky? Yes, because this is a new territory for the present governments – that of “self-governing opposition to its governance”.

Yes, that is the most fascinating part of WikiLeaks – ‘it is completely agnostic on ‘existing laws created by nations’. It does not necessarily break any one particular country’s existing law – whether or not its activity is considered friendly or otherwise by the affected country. At the same time, no country can claim to be the host nation to WikiLeaks. It is present wherever someone wants it to be present!

In other words, WikiLeaks is the first 21st century ‘project’ that “governs itself” beyond the geographical – and thereby the moral, legal and legislative – limitations of any one country or a union of nations. Coming soon is a new ‘system’ by its break-away group.

Even more invigoratingly, it seems to put an individual on a higher pedestal of respect than the artificial ideas of human states.So, while individual privacy does indeed matter to WikiLeaks, as illustrated by the following mail by Julian Assange to US ambassador in London, Louis Susman on 26 November,

“We urge the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm”

the privacy of governments and big corporations, that seem to be acting in a manner contrary to public perception, is not considered fit for protection.

In other words, what WikiLeaks seems to suggest through its action is that, privacy is for private individuals. Governments qualify more for the ‘right to be transparent’ to those that it claims to represent.

It is the most spectacular teaching of the Internet – holding great promise for volunteers of seamless extension of an individual’s right across geographical boundaries.

What is even more exciting is that even WikiLeaks is not considered free enough by some of its own. “Built on similar ideas”, a former WikiLeaks associate has said that he and a number of other ex-members are preparing to “set up a system that is different from WikiLeaks,”

25-year-old historian and student Herbert Snorrason says: “It is a different type of project and we do not see it as competition, nor should it be considered to be a WikiLeaks competitor.” The difference, according to Snorrason, was that while WikiLeaks gathers leaked documents and dumps them on its site, the new project – the name of which he has thus far refused to divulge – will be “a safe haven where people can share information anonymously.”

“We will not be publishing information ourselves, but rather be the hub of where people can upload information without having to be associated with what they upload,” he explained.

“We aim for the organisational structure of the project to be as open as possible. We do not intend of having one person in control, but rather that majority of people involved will be present in all decision making,” Snorrason said.

Admittedly, in absence of further information, it does not help one ascertain if it is much different from the ‘dumping ground’ that WikiLeaks is accused of by its critics. But whatever its fate – or those of more such enterprises – be in future, the key here is to understand that what you shall be what you would be seen to be in the future, in case of governments and big corporations anyway.

It is this segregation of what is good for individuals and what their governments often project to be good for them is what makes this idea valuable. It understands that every individual understands what is good and what is not for him or her – and that the knowledge cannot be stunted by privacy of those governments, organizations or corporations that govern them.

It stands for an individual’s human rights. It stands for an individual’s liberty. If it is at the cost of governments, so be it.

With acute apology to Julius Caesar, this new chapter in our civilization can as well be described asVidi, WIKI, Vici – “I saw, WikiLeaks, I conquered” … a new world order where liberty really extends to every individual!

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for not taking action on an application seeking his sanction to start criminal proceedings against former telecom minister A Raja for his role in the 2G spectrum scam.

This is not an event that happens everyday. In fact, though the present state of India warrants it happening everyday, it should not. For, the judiciary is not to guide or compete with the government, but only to help the government uphold the democracy in the country.

What is further encouraging about the stricture – if we may call it so – is the aspect of ‘time’ in the issue of 2G Spectrum Scam. Because it has become a habit of sort of all political parties to drag the matters of corruption for so long that they die a natural death. In fact, for Congress (I) it has actually been a time-tested strategy. Late PM Narasimha Rao was one of the masters of this gameplan. Others – especially the regional parties – don’t spend even that much energy on such subjects and are blatantly dismissive of corruption charges.

So, when the SC rules that 16 months to respond to a query tantamounts to “worrying inaction and silence’, one gathers renewed hope about pace of reforms in the Indian system – whether on the subject of justice or to the subject of official accountability.

What adds to the above optimism is the role of media in all such matters. Sure, there are immoral and unscrupulous elements in media too, but even they – in search of newer markets – hop on to the bandwagon and help raise either a voice that cannot be ignored or a noise that becomes unbearable for all.

This combination of media/public pressure and judiciary can prove to be the most effective check that any democracy can hope for. And can prove to be a development that would impact all the political parties.

From now on, hopefully, the present Prime Minister and his party would be wary of ‘inaction’ on any subject. Amidst all the muck flying around, that new hope does come across as fresh air.

Telecom minister Andimuthu Raja, who has been quite brazenly hitting back at demands for his resignation in the 1,76,000 Crore 2G Spectrum Scam, has – finally – decided to step down and submit his resignation to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. All’s well, that ends well, right?

Absolutely not!

A mere forced resignation of a Union Minister, who is seen to be neck-deep in corruption by most, cannot be the ‘end’ of a sordid saga of criminal indulgence with public money. It can only be a beginning. For, if it were the end, it would add to a trillion instances like a policman getting transfered to another chowky when found of corruption (or even custodial death or rape et al). Doesn’t that tantamount to telling the accused that while his act of rape or corruption is not acceptable at that place, it might be in sync with the place that he is getting transfered to?

1,76,000 Crore is an obscene amount; an amount that can make a difference to a significant percentage of Indian population. If that has been lost because of (or gone into the pockets of) a select few, those select few should be made to pay it back.

There haven’t been too many instances of the high and mighty being made accountable on charges of corruption in this country. But it would never be too late to start, by emulating the example of justice meted out to the likes of Satyam’s Ramalinga Raju, big bull (late) Harshad Mehta and the rest.

Whether it is the Commonwealth Games Scam, the Adarsh Society Scam or the 2G Spectrum Scam, justice simply cannot be the mere resignations or removals of a politician or two. Justice can be done – and seen to be done – only when the accused are tried under Indian Penal Code and made to serve sentences in Indian jails.

That is what League of India demands from the Indian democracy. That is the least that the Indian democracy deserves.

The Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Ashok Chavan, says that had he known that Amitabh Bachchan was going to be present at the innauguration of a grossly mismanaged Bandra-Worli Sea Link Project, he would not have gone there himself!

Why? Because Amitabh Bachchan is now the Brand Ambassador of tourism in Gujarat.

It is not Chavan’s fault though. Every Congress worker thinks that the whole nation – or at least the states ruled by Congress (I) – is the private property of their party. And by extension, they can be excused to believe that Gujarat is now a private company run by  Narendra Modi.

And we all know how “Narendra Modi is a blot on India”; and that no living Congressman would ever be associated with the likes of him – right?

Maybe that’s the reason why,

• Congress (I) required the services of and projected Shankarsinh Vaghela, once an active and a staunch RSS man, as its candidate for the position of Chief Minister of Gujarat –  twice?
• Congress (I) now has Shiv Sena politicians like Narayan Rane and Sanjay Nirupam in Maharashtra – with Smita Thackeray, daughter-in-law of Balasaheb Thackeray – no less, waiting in the wings?
• Shibu Soren, who (leaving aside his ‘minor instinct to be corrupt’) is facing charges of massacre of Muslims in Bihar, was a Union Minister in the UPA government?
• People like Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, H K L Bhagat – all accused in the 1984 Delhi riots – ran the roost in Delhi unit of Congress (I) for decades?

The entire list would require the archives size of New York Times; and hence, we would stop there itself. But sample this:

Maharashtra has witnessed, on an average, ONE COMMUNAL RIOT EVERY 20 DAYS during the last five years (2004-09)

– as per statistics provided by Maharashtra police in reply to an RTI application on the subject

and this:

254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed in Gujarat in the post Godhra riots of 2002

– as per a written reply by Minister of State for Home Affairs Sriprakash Jaiswal (of Congress (I), mind you)

Just in case you are bewildered, yes, this is the same riots in which, according to an entire machinery of media-savvy NGOs, “thousands and thousands of Muslims” were massacred.

Further, sample this:

“The riots in 1969 have become a history by themselves. There was never any riot in the state of gujarat of magnitude as was witnessed in September 1969.”

– ‘history of riots and agitations in Gujarat’

560 people died and 561 were injured in the riots of 1969

– Justice P J Reddy Commission which inquired into this riots found that at least

Mind you, in 1969, forget Modi, even BJP was not there in the political arena. It was a Congress Chief Minister, Hitendra Desai at the helm in Gujarat then.

Were the Congress people of the time ashamed of being seen with the Gujarat CM then?

and finally, this:

Official figures state that during the post Indira Gandhi assassination riots, 2,733 Sikhs were murdered in November 1984 in Delhi alone

“Jab ek bada ped girta hai toh zameen toh thodi hilti hai”, Rajiv Gandhi had remarked at the time

It is the same ‘secular’ Rajiv Gandhi who had then gone to ‘his friend’ Amitabh Bachchan to fight Lok Sabha election on Congress (I) ticket from Allahabad – for he knew well that no other man would have managed to defeat H L Bahuguna there.

Amitabh did.

But resigned later because his name too got muddied along with his ‘Bofors accused’ friend Rajiv Gandhi. It is worth noting here that Amitabh Bachchan provides (probably) the only example of recent times, wherein a sitting MP had resigned on moral grounds and had gone ahead to fight a long legal battle to clear his name in a controversy.

Today, the name ‘Bofors’ neither visits nor concern Amitabh Bachchan, but the Gandhi family is still having to talk at length to expaclain the many behind-the-scenes  happenings surrounding its family friend Quattarochi.

Taking into account the 1984 riots and the Bofors Scandal (leaving aside even major incidents like the truth that it was actually Rajiv Gandhi who had directed the opening up of temple in the Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid compound), maybe it is Amitabh Bachchan, who should be embarrassed to be seen with Congress (I) – and not the farce of the other way round !

If Mumbai Congress (I) ‘stalwarts’ like Kripashankar Singh – who was once the Home Minister of the state and is presently ‘anguished and angry’ at Bachchan being invited for the inauguration – has conviction about his real credentials, let him fight an election against Amitabh Bachchan in any part of the country.

In fact, since ‘secularism’ for him is merely making hollow noises about Muslims, let him fight against Bachchan in ANY Islamic country of the world, including Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Oman or Indonesia.

He won’t. He can’t. He knows that people like him are mere sycophants of their political masters and hollow facades of humanity for their political constituencies.

LEFT’S OWN COUNTRY:

Moving on from the messy-polis, the Left front government of Kerala, recently, first invited Amitabh Bachchan to become the brand Ambassador of the state and then when Amitabh readily agreed, backed out after giving public statements about the move being inappropriate, owing to the actor’s association with Gujarat tourism department. Polit bureau member Sitaram Yechury had said that his party did not approve the move.

Instead of giving too much space to the fringe actors of fast fading political turf, let’s ponder over these two truths:

“If it had not been (Major) Sandeep’s house, NOT EVEN A DOG WOULD HAVE GLANCED THAT WAY”

– Chief Minister of Kerala, V S Achuthanandan, had remarked when Martyr (Major) Sandeep Unnikrishnan’s distraught father had turned away the CM from his house – because he felt that the state government had ignored his brave-heart son’s supreme sacrifice.

We wish to add nothing more to that except that, maybe it is Amitabh Bachchan, who should be embarrassed to be associated with a government whose CM publicly insults the sacrifice of a 23-year-old NSG commando for the sake of his country. Bachchan should also be scared that if, God forbid, his city Mumbai is attacked again in future, no 23-year-old might want to give his life for the cause.

There is video evidence of a CPM members shooting down villagers in Nandigram in West Bengal, during the entire TATA – Nano Vs villagers conflict. It has been shown many times over by most TV channels. In any case, the ‘official violence’ perpetrated by the CPM cadre in West Bengal is well known.

So then, is Sitaram Yechury “approving” of such moves of his cadre?

Clearly, this is neither about any self-serving definition of secularism by Congress (I) nor about moral or social “appropriate-ness” of the Left parties. It is about flogging the guts out of an easy meat for the sake of personal vendetta (by Congress (I)) and personal relevance (Left parties).

Just as the fastest and surest way of increasing the readership or viewership of any media vehicle in India would be to put Amitabh Bachchan’s name against an unsavoury, unbelievable and unethical story of sensational proportions (How about this: Big B asks for Bal Thackeray’s help in making ‘My Name is Khan’ a box office flop. Sounds yummy, right?), post Raj Thackeray poison, it has been discovered that an entire political party can be created by simply bad-mouthing the actor. After all, when did you last hear Kripashankar Singh’s name? Now, not only has he got footage in TV but also earned brownie points from the ‘high command’ about the much appreciated skill of sycophancy.

The man has recently been decorated for his services to the world of cinema at Oman and Hong Kong; plays big taxes; helps scores of people through charity; inspired millions to strive for success; has given millions the reason to smile and – bringing our Indian cultural values into the discussion – is almost 68 years old. Why can’t the politicians leave him alone?

Indeed, Congress (I) does not need Amitabh Bachchan for survival – just as Kerala doesn’t need him to bring more tourists. Similarly, Amitabh too doesn’t need the politicians. But while Amitabh is going about his job, the politicians are using him as a tool. It is time the media and people realise this, and ask the politicians to get busy with their real DUTY of working for the welfare of people.

Till then, let’s just reiterate the obvious:

Amitabh Bachchan is a national icon, pride of a billion people and infinitely more valuable for this entire world than what political sycophants can ever be.

Coming, finally to the question of the debate, viz. “Is Amitabh Bachchan a terrorist?” Inspite of the manner in and intensity with which he is being castigated by the Maharashtra and Kerala governments these days, we can safely say that he is not. Because if Amitabh Bachchan were indeed a terrorist, Congress (I) and the Left Front would never have attacked him – for the sake of peace and harmony in the country. Or for some reason similar.

Are we not right, Honourable Guest of the Indian State, Shri Afzhal Guru?

Period.

PS: Amitabh Bachchan was personally invited to the public event by the PWD minister Jaidutt Kshirsagar of the NCP – and had not gatecrashed a private party. Just in case …