By Farzana Versey
27 October, 2011
Countercurrents.org
Countercurrents.org
Kiran Bedi is indeed
wrong, but when media persons sit to judge her it is a bit of a laugh.
Clearly, they do not look in the mirror.
Instead of seeing this as an opportunity to question
all sorts of voluntary agencies and their modus operandi, we have a
situation where a person is pinned down for wrongdoing without a
backward glance at how the whole NGO business works, often with the
media’s involvement.
Kiran Bedi has been fudging her bills, where she
charged inflated amounts from her hosts. The main source was airline
tickets. She would travel by economy class, that too at a discount
because of her gallantry award, and charge business class fares. We now
have these sanctimonious NGOs tell us that they took it at “face value”.
Most NGOs send the tickets themselves. So, why did they let her use her
travel agent? And what sort of auditing departments do they run? The
reason for keeping quiet is not that they were afraid of Ms. Bedi’s
wrath – they obviously did not mind shelling out Business Class fares –
but because their finances will lead to many question marks.
This is my point. The media and certain activists
have taken a convenient yo-yo stand on the Jan Lokpal Bill campaign.
They propped him up and were completely besotted by Team Anna. After
they were done with the photo-ops of the caps and the fasting and
dancing, they realised that there were chinks in the armour. No one was
interested in the deeper questions – it came down to superficial
put-downs.
Let us get this fudging business clear. Kiran Bedi
has admitted to it and says she will return the excess money that she
wanted to use for her own NGO. Where do the NGOs get this kind of money
that they can afford to invite people from different cities for
seminars? I have often posed this query when we rubbish other
institutions. Do you know that most of the activists themselves travel
Business Class, stay at fancy hotels, and order the best food – for
what? To gupshup about the state of the nation, the homeless, female
foeticide, dowry, terrorism, communalism?
Check out the number of people who have left their
high-paying corporate and bureaucratic jobs to “serve the nation” or
“become useful members of society” or, “fight communalism”. They could
do all of these by continuing to work. The reason is that activism has
become a paying proposition. Have you seen the huge ads put up in
newspapers inviting you to attend some conclave or the other? Is it
affordable or even appropriate to shell out this kind of money on
overheads? Besides government grants, there is a good deal of foreign
sponsorship and donations from industrial houses. While the
international ‘intervention’ often comes with some amount of
side-effects (pushing of substandard products and services clubbed with
the do-good, feel-good stuff), some of the Indian business black money
that is not stashed away in banks abroad is routed to charitable
organisation, with income tax exemption.
Why does the media not raise a voice about this? Has
the media ever questioned journalists who attend these same seminars?
Oh yes, the same journalists who give inflated bills to their accounts
departments for their travels and hotel stays and “related expenses”.
Journalists who sit at the desk and make phone calls but charge taxi
fare for the quotes. Journalists who try to get tickets and freebies
because they think they are in a position to ‘arrange something’.
Journalists who do not have to spend a paisa at restaurants and spas
because they just might mention it, in passing, in their next column.
Journalists who give us scoops that are fed to them by interested
parties or who conduct sting operations that are again paid for by
interested parties.
Of course, it is not only the media at fault, but
also those who host such talks. Corporate India’s ladies who lunch get a
big high when they invite a person who can indeed talk and add to their
resume. They flash such people as trophies to display their own worth
as ‘aware citizens’. That some media people are doing their evening show
with this group should be an eye-opener rather than a can-opener.
If, as some commentators wish to know, why people
from public office enter the fray late in the day to become part of
NGOs, then one might wish to ask them why they have timed their queries
now and not for all these years. Do they ponder about it when they go on
government-sponsored junkets?
The problem is that this whole Anna Hazare campaign
has been a sham, and revealed more shams both on the inside as well as
on the outside. It showed us how the ruling party and the opposition got
to pay politics; the arrests also reveal a lot about those who got away
without a scratch to their reputations. It is rather disingenuous of
Digvijay Singh to say that if Kiran Bedi can offer to return the money,
then every bribery case can be closed by saying the bribe-taker will
return the money, including, A. Raja.
This is some gumption. A minister in the government
of India is caught in a scam of frightening proportions and another
government person uses this as an analogy. He is also quite gung-ho
about such a thing happening at the highest level. The 2G Spectrum scam
is not just about bribes, but also about how the nation was taken for a
ride with the government, big industrialists and lobbies involved. It is
about how the government functions and not merely who took how much.
This case has come under scrutiny; many others do not.
If political agencies get a chance, they try to
co-opt the activist groups. Most are willing to go along because it is
the easy option. In some cases where they need the government to act, it
does become a crucial mutual involvement. Therefore, if a political
party invites activists, and they fudge figures about travel expenses,
then what will the political parties do? Why not question the complete
lack of balance by media groups? One can understand individual
commentators taking a particular position, but why do they blatantly
follow the newspaper/TV channel line? Where is their independence? Those
who talk about objectivity should really look in their own backyards.
There is favouritism everywhere and the media indulges in it as much as
politicians, and the ‘activist’ role of the media should also come under
scrutiny.
Tavleen Singh, Indian Express columnist, while
raising some important points, makes a rather shocking comment: “My own
observation is that many NGOs working in India appear to be funded by
organisations bent on ensuring that India never becomes a developed
country… In order for India to become a halfway developed country, we
need new roads, airports, ports, modern railways and masses more
electricity. In addition, according to experts, we need 500 more cities
by 2050. The odd thing is that the NGOs who oppose steel plants, nuclear
power stations, dams and aluminum refineries in India never object to
the same things in China.”
Is this the definition of development, and the only
model? As I have already said, many NGOs do have an agenda, but not only
if they are funded by organisations that do not wish to see a developed
India. By this logic, Gujarat should have no NGOs. And why must Indian
NGOs object to what happens in China? Has the Indian government opposed
the self-immolation of Tibetan monks and nuns in support of the Dalai
Lama’s return? Has the BJP done so? Has the media done so?
Forget the NGOs for a while. Think about how these
plants were to come up, who was to be uprooted and how it would affect
the environment. If this development is only for those setting up
factories and making India technologically advanced, then why are we
still the hub of western-powered outsourcing? Are the NGOs involved
here?
Why absolve the fat cats of business only to hit out
at the NGOs unless they are specifically playing dirty? How many media
people have taken free jet rides, attended fancy wedding functions
abroad and written glowing accounts of them? Will they be sanctified as
the facilitators of development? Or do they need to get closer to the
seats of such power or perhaps such development? These are trick or
treat queries. Ask them we must, for there is much beyond Kiran Bedi,
whose banshee persona was in fact given a boost by the media when they
needed her sound bytes. They were birds of a feather, until she was
grounded.
The still-feathered ones have taken wing and are giving us a bird’s eye-view.
Farzana Versey is a Mumbai-based writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment