For much of the past year, the anti-corruption movement that swept across India was personified by the Teletubby-like form of Anna Hazare and his band of loyal lieutenants.
They tapped into the popular mood against corruption, organised a succession of hunger strikes, mobilised large masses of people in cities and towns, and forced the government and the political parties – with the sheer persuasive power of their cause – to negotiate with them on the contours of an anti-corruption agency.
In terms of capturing the popular imagination, raising public awareness, and conducting a high-decibel, high-visibility campaign against corruption, they were enormously successful.
But by the end of the year, when Team Anna’s fast in Mumbai withered away for want of popular support, and the political establishment effectively killed the yearning for a strong Lokpal Bill, Anna and his fellow-crusaders against corruption were compelled to concede momentary defeat, fold up their tents, and retreat quietly into the night in order to redraw their strategy.
The real success over the past year in the campaign against corruption was won by Subramanian Swamy, a lone ranger, by chipping away within the existing legal system. PTI
It was Swamy’s interjection, right from the time he sought prosecution of Telecom Minister A Raja in the 2G scam case — and his doggedness — that turned the heat on India’s biggest corruption case, and has ensured that Raja is cooling his heels in the slammer for a year, come February.
Building up a legal case is agonising, frustrating work, particularly because the due process of law, in all fairness, gives the accused a chance to defend himself. For Artful Dodgers, the law provides infinite loopholes to delay or even scuttle the investigation and the trial.
Yet, as Swamy has demonstrated, with a keen understanding of the law, and an unyielding determination, one can build a steady case against even the highest in the land – and persuade the highest court in the country of the merits of your case.
Like the members of Team Anna, Swamy also makes effective use of the media megaphone to advance his case. In many instances, this finds expression in his sending out veiled messages to others in high places whom he has on his radar. Some of these allegations are too libellous for media to broadcast, but Swamy revels in them, practically daring his targets to sue him.
In a recent profile of Swamy, which traces his politics and delves into his persona, journalist Ashok Malik recalled a (probably apocryphal) story about him.
“One day, a powerful editor with a blackmailing tendency walked into Swamy’s basement office in his south Delhi residence, and threw a sheaf of papers on the table. “Dr Swamy,” he thundered, “I have a file on you.” Unperturbed, Swamy reached out for a folder in his bottom drawer, placed them on the desk and said, calmly, with the chilling certitude so typical of his voice, “Mr Editor, I have a file on you.”
The provenance of that story has not been established, but it seems entirely plausible, given Swamy’s record of playing offence as defence.
Today’s Supreme Court verdict too represents a high watermark in the campaign against corruption, to the extent that it makes every citizen a potential stakeholder and invests him/her with the power (to be exercised responsibly, of course) to initiate enquiries and legal proceedings.
The cause that Team Anna championed was for a strong, independent anti-corruption agency: that cause is still valid, and the good fight must continue on that front.
But that effort, while legitimate, depended excessively on the creation of a parallel universe – one that would be required to be perfect in every way and one that (as was demonstrated) could easily be scuttled by the political establishment.
Swamy, on the other hand, has demonstrated over the past year that it is possible to fight the good fight against corruption in this very universe, using the existing legal avenues and levers. And, more importantly, win.
0 comments:
Post a Comment