Seeing more than that which meets the eye

Surely this is not the type of governance that Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wants his party, the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), to flaunt in Gujarat or elsewhere in the country. The K. Venkataswami Commission was still investigating the Tehelka expose of corruption in defence deals when he was appointed chairman of the one-man committee on Advanced Rulings on Customs and Excise.

I hope that the Vajpayee Cabinet does not entrust to the Liberhan Commission, which is examining the charges of demolition of the Babri masjid, some job relating to the Government of India.

How could the government even think of giving an official assignment to the judge who was more than half way through the inquiry into charges against Defence Minister George Fernandes and others? Does it tell more than what meets the eye? I am told that at the end of every sitting there was a high-level meeting to interpret the judge's observations.

Maybe, some of them were not to the liking of the government at a particular time when it thought of creating confusion. The judge has said in an interview that when the centre was asked to clearly define its allegation of general conspiracy levelled against some people, the controversy arose.

It is surprising that a person of the calibre of Chief Justice S.P. Barucha made the mistake of recommending Justice Venkata-swami's name. He knew Venkataswami was already at a job. But even if Chief Justice Barucha had made the mistake, the government should have pointed out to him that Justice Venkataswami was already busy investigating the Tehelka disclosures.

The chief justice would have suggested another name. I have a sneaking feeling that the rulers may have managed the exit of Venkataswami when they found the going uncomfortable.

I am not casting aspersions on Justice Venkataswami. He is an upright judge who has now resigned from both jobs. He should have said "no" to the new assignment. Otherwise, it was bound to be misunderstood. Whether he drew any salary or allowance is not the point at issue.

The point is that when he was holding the Tehelka expose sittings, he was allotted the work connected with advanced rulings on customs and excise. I hope that the present Chief Justice does not forward the name of any other judge in place of Justice Venkataswami.

Why shouldn't parliament itself take care of exposures of corruption against ministers? It should have been done in the first instance itself. When there is a provision for a joint parliamentary committee (JPC), it should be exercised to look into the charges of corruption against ministers.

When the Bofors gun scandal hit the headlines, a JPC was appointed to go through the entire gamut of the transaction. It is another matter that the exercise turned out to be a farce.

It will be a pity if the whole exercise on the Tehelka tapes has to be gone over de novo. As many as 181 sittings have been held, 50 witnesses examined and 918 pages of depositions have been recorded. If and when a judge is appointed, he or she can pick up where Justice Venkataswami had left off.

But the new judge may want to hear the case from the beginning. It does not matter to the government because its expenses are covered by the taxpayer's money. But the Tehelka people, who have been harassed and hounded for nearly two years, may find a fresh exercise too expensive and more irritating. It may also come as a relief because the whole thing had come to be a probe against the Tehelka journalists.

A JPC will be a better option for them. But it is the government which will resist the appointment of a JPC. The BJP spokesman has already indicated it. Although the sittings are behind closed doors, the entire evidence becomes public once the report is published.

Rulers can never be fond of JPC exposures. They do not want their dirty linen to be washed in public. With the Chief Justice's reluctance to name Justice Venkataswami's successor, the government may appoint a retired judge on its own. It should at least consult the opposition leader if they are opposed to a JPC.

George Fernandes and others will be the gainers. He is "not guilty" as the prime minister put it before re-inducting him into the Cabinet. The Tehelka people will be endlessly waiting for justice. Even after having exposed corrupt deals they or, for that matter, the media hands continue to be in the dock. That is governance.

Another example of governance is the lack of settlement of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid controversy. Ten years have gone by since the demolition of the masjid. The formula which has lost currency is: Constitutional guarantee to Muslims that their mosques, monuments, darghas and others since independence will be intact on the condition that they give the Babri masjid site to the Hindu community. Another formula almost became a settlement. But Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani reportedly said: "No."

The formula would not have come to light but for the disclosure by Mohammed Shahid Khan, chairman of the BJP's minority cell in Gujarat. He resigned from the party in protest a few days ago.

The formula envisaged the possession by the Hindu community of the site on which the Babri masjid stood before demolition. It was free to build a temple on it. In return, the Muslims were to have the mausoleum of Mir Qasim, 11 kilometres away from Ayodhya. What made the proposal viable was the support it received from the Imams of Makkah and Madina and the maulanas of some 450 darghas.

According to Shahid Khan, Advani was initially satisfied with the formula. But, subsequently, he rejected it on the ground that if the Ayodhya issue had been solved, the BJP would have no issue for "political" gains. Shahid Khan says that he sought Prime Minister Vajapyee's support. But the prime minister said: "You want to rewrite history but no one will allow you to do so."

Spiking a formula which might have settled the vexing, age-old masjid problem – is this the kind of governance that Vajpayee suggested to his partymen for the poll campaign in Gujarat?

Chief Minister Narendra Modi has already responded by introducing Godhra in a big way. Hindutva provides gist to the propaganda mill of the Sangh parivar (family). It has no other issues. The temple is on top of the BJP's agenda.

The party makes it clear every now and then that it will pursue the issue when it has a majority in parliament. The very fact that the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid dispute is still a burning question helps the BJP garner the Hindu vote. That the BJP, which wants India to be a Hindu Rashtra, has political ends in view does not surprise anyone. The party's entire philosophy is based on how to keep the communal politics alive.

The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP and a former Indian High Commissioner to the UK.