Why CAG Vinod Rai is a hero and Digvijaya a big zero
Congress loud-mouth Digvijaya Singh has been at it again, this time lambasting a constitutional authority like the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
Among other things, Singh has been quoted by The Indian Express as alleging that CAG’s boss Vinod Rai has political ambitions, and that his loss figures are fiction. He said: “The way the CAG is going, it is clear he has political ambitions like TN Chaturvedi (a former CAG who later joined the BJP). He has been giving notional and fictional figures that have no relevance to facts. How has he computed these figures? He is talking through his hat.”
Singh’s direct attack on the CAG is not surprising since no less person than Manmohan Singhhas done the same thing, and in Parliament (read his full speech here).
So if anyone is “talking through his hat” it is the two Singhs, and not Vinod Rai. However, it is worth sifting through the various criticisms that have been levelled against the CAG so that we can really sort out fact from fiction.
The CAG may have gone a bit overboard with its numbers – but they weren’t too off the mark.
Critiques of CAG reports – whether on the 2G, coal blocks, or Delhi airport irregularities – have taken on three lines of reasoning: one, that the losses projected are wrong or non-existent; two, that the CAG is intruding into policy areas and exceeding its constitutional mandate; and, three, that the CAG is a publicity hound and may be seeking to cultivate a higher profile for narrow personal reasons (as Digvijaya Singh is now alleging).
Let’s take them one by one. The first argument – that the loss calculations are humbug – have two variants – zero losses, and wrong calculation of losses.
First, the zero-loss to the exchequer argument is so silly that it is surprising that Congress ministers and spokespersons still bother to make it. It boggles the mind that intelligent ministers like P Chidambaram and Kapil Sibal think there has been no loss to the exchequerin the spectrum or coal block scams.
Can the handing over of a coal block for free really mean no loss? Even if no coal is mined, the asset has some market value. This logic is so irrefutable that one wonders why they are still making it.
Second, and this is the more substantive argument, it is said that the CAG’s loss calculation is wildly out of whack, and flawed. This criticism is partly valid, since value is derived from price, and when the price of an asset can vary from morning to evening, the potential loss (or undue gain) can be computed only at a specific point in time, and if there is an actual price or transaction.
If you bought a share at Rs 10, and the market price is Rs 8 today, it means a potential loss of Rs 2 per share, but if tomorrow the price is up to Rs 12, you gain Rs 2. But this Rs 2 is not a real gain till you actually sell.
So, let’s accept the reality that loss or gain can be calculated only when there is an actual price, and an actual transaction at a particular price.
But when you have got an asset for free (as in coal blocks), or well below a potential market price (as in spectrum), even if there is no price would you still think you got no benefit?
If a company has issued you a bonus share (thus, free) and the market price is Rs 10, even if you haven’t sold it don’t you know that you have made a potential gain? And if you got the share as a rights issue at Rs 2, don’t you still know you made a decent gain? You lose only if the value of the asset falls, in an actual transaction, below zero (unlikely) or below Rs 2 (again unlikely) in the two examples above.
Conclusion: the CAG may be wrong — even wildly wrong – about its estimate of losses. But it is certainly not wrong to say there could have been a major loss to the exchequer. In fact, for every calculation that shows the losses could be lower than the Rs 1,86,000 crore estimated by CAG, others show it could be higher (read here).
In fact, attempts to focus on the correctness of the CAG’s loss estimates are really red herrings strewn across our path. They will take us away from the CAG’s core conclusion, which reads thus:
“There was nothing on record in the minutes of the screening committee or in other documents on any comparative evaluation of the applicants for a coal block…The minutes did not indicate how each one of the applicants was evaluated. Thus, a transparent method was not followed.”
For all we care, the winners in the coal blocks lottery could have been the result of arbitrary decisions to favour specific cronies. This does not mean favours were shown only to UPA’s pals, but could also include the friends of people in opposition-ruled states, where most of the coal blocks are located. But loss is undeniable.
This brings us to the next criticism: that the CAG is trying to exceed its constitutional mandate of merely being a low-brow number cruncher. And that it is also intruding into the policy domain by saying coal should have been allocated by competitive bidding.
Digvijaya Singh bellowed: “The past CAGs, they never sensationalised any issue and were constitutionally correct on everything they did…”.
This again is bunkum. No auditor can see his job as only totalling numbers. It is his job to see if there was scope for wrongdoing – not only in terms of procedures followed, but best practices not followed. When the PMO had itself planned to shift to a competitive bidding process for allocating coal blocks, how is it wrong for the CAG to tell you what could have been lost in not shifting over to that process? Every auditor has a responsibility to protect all stakeholders’ interests – and in the case of natural resources, the stakeholders are the people of India and the exchequer, among others.
As Swaminathan Aiyar notes in his Swaminomics column in The Times of India: “Today, the CAG has turned activist….(but) Despite excesses, an activist CAG represents a net gain for democracy. Along with the Supreme Court, the CAG has ensured that most natural resources will be auctioned in future. That is a huge gain in fairness.”
Why should the PM and Digvijaya Singh object to a huge gain in fairness?
The last argument – that the CAG is playing to the gallery by bandying about big loss figures like Rs 1.76 lakh crore in 2G and Rs 1.86 lakh crore in coal blocks – is important.
Since the loss figures are debatable, the question is: why is the CAG doing this? Is it for gaining popularity? Or for Vinod Rai to join politics?
This answer cannot be given except through another question: would anybody have noted the scams in 2G and coal blocks without these big numbers? It was only by trying to calculate losses that a nation was shocked into realising the kind of skullduggery that A Raja was involved in, and also the lack of transparency in coal block allocations.
The CAG may have gone a bit overboard with its numbers – but they weren’t too off the mark. Sometimes the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Without these numbers, no one would have sampled the CAG’s literature.
You could say the CAG was trying to market its report to the public with its sensational figures. But its strategy worked. Vinod Rai is a hero for waking us all from our slumber. Till he unveiled those big numbers, we were unaware what a mess government was making of its fiduciary duties to the nation.
http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-cag-vinod-rai-is-a-hero-and-digvijaya-a-big-zero-437955.html#.UEGp4xGrgXw.twitter
CAG has not crossed the Lakshmanrekha
Amitabh Mukhopadhyay, Sep 1, 2012 Collected from newspaper DECCAN HERALD
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/275821/cag-has-not-crossed-lakshmanrekha.html
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/275821/cag-has-not-crossed-lakshmanrekha.html
CAG’s Reports tabled on August 17, 2012 in Parliament of India have generated a jansunwai (public hearing) across the country. It is heartening to find that papers tabled in legislatures, which are not meant only for the purposes of being examined by closeted committees or political parties, are being put to good use for civic engagement.
&Wanton cronyism pointed out in these reports on allocation of coal blocks to industrial firms, committing excessive prime land for developing the Delhi airport and post-bid favours to companies and concessionaires is being further investigated by government agencies, political parties, civil society and the media. Democracy is coming alive.
The initial response of the coalition government was to try and shroud them in a mystique by referring to them as “draft reports” and question the mandate of CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General). An indomitable media pointed out the prerogative of CAG and the immense public good done by the tabling of the preceding report by CAG on allocation of licences for 2G spectrum. Cancellation of licences by the Supreme Court vindicated CAG’s concerns. The Bharatiya Janata Party, first asked for a statement in the House by the prime minister.
Realising that the reports of CAG stand referred to the PAC as soon as they are tabled, impressed by the water-tight nature of the reports and quick to scent the political weal against corruption in public life throughout the country, the party changed its strategy the very next day to demanding the resignation of the prime minister. The BJP stalled the House proceedings for a whole week.
Three reports tabled on August 17 do not question any policy and are clearly focussed on the impropriety and irregularities in not implementing the relevant policies. The unique constitutional position of CAG allows him to determine the scope and extent of his functions. While quoting the Constitution in the early years, the then Vice President Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan said in the Rajya Sabha that the officials of the CAG’s department have to serve the country and not just the government. Several statements by luminaries in the Lok Sabha and rulings by Speaker M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar have settled the issue as to whether honourable members of the House can or cannot question his conduct. They cannot, unless they bring a substantive motion against him.
Accepting the obligation to make a statement in the House on a matter of public importance, the prime minister first tried to read out a statement in the House, then simply tabled it and with a rare display of righteous indignation in front of the press, waiting outside, he said he took full responsibility and denied the allegations of impropriety in allocation of coal blocks raised vociferously by the BJP in the House.
Interestingly, he also wistfully recited a couplet to the effect that in the din of questioning, he remains self-assured about his honour. That was a poetic moment, both for a man tossed between pillar and post as well as for those watching him.
His legalistic statement contained practically nothing beyond what the officers of the department have said in the course of three exit conferences that CAG’s officers conducted to ensure they had verified the facts and explanations of the government before the report was finalised. The prime minister has only made two noteworthy points in his statement.
The first point contests CAG’s view that competitive bidding could have been introduced in 2006 by amending the administrative arrangements. In prime minister’s view, CAG has read the advice of the Law Ministry on this matter selectively. A simple reading of the relevant para in CAG’s report would make it amply clear that he has considered in detail the entire set of advices given by the Law Ministry and that he has arrived at a specific audit conclusion differing with the contention of the Coal Ministry which tried to intertwine the advice of the Law Ministry on two separate references. The Law Ministry had categorically mentioned on July 28, 2006 that the competitive route could be adopted through administrative arrangements. Amendment in the Act was advised by the Law Ministry in August 2006 on the request of the Coal Ministry that the process be given legal footing.
In contrast to the cut in his point that CAG’s judgment is flawed and arises out of selective reading of the advice of the Law Ministry, the thrust of his defence, is : “In retrospect, I would readily agree that in a world where things can be done by fiat, we could have done it faster. But, given the complexities of the process of consensus building in our parliamentary system, this is easier said than done“. The plea of building consensus is, of course, understandable in a parliamentary democracy, but not at such a huge cost to public interest. The makers of our Constitution, no doubt, placed a great premium on striving for consensus and advised amicability in the relations between the Union and the States.
The PM should not have taken full responsibility. To weigh the cut and thrust in his statement, the distinction between an irregularity and an impropriety needs to be borne in mind. An irregularity is committed when a law, rule or regulation or even convention is transgressed. An impropriety, in the context of government, refers to a failure to act according to standards and expectations of citizens from a holder of an office. The rampant irregularities committed by the screening committee between the first thought about competitive bidding and the final action, cited in CAG’s report and being exposed daily, appear like a hideous dream that could prove to be crucial in determining the impropriety in our prime minister’s conduct when the PAC examines the matter. The political circumstance of a restive polity may not allow for much time for the Committee to arrive at its recommendations.
(The writer is Former DG, CAG.)
The initial response of the coalition government was to try and shroud them in a mystique by referring to them as “draft reports” and question the mandate of CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General). An indomitable media pointed out the prerogative of CAG and the immense public good done by the tabling of the preceding report by CAG on allocation of licences for 2G spectrum. Cancellation of licences by the Supreme Court vindicated CAG’s concerns. The Bharatiya Janata Party, first asked for a statement in the House by the prime minister.
Realising that the reports of CAG stand referred to the PAC as soon as they are tabled, impressed by the water-tight nature of the reports and quick to scent the political weal against corruption in public life throughout the country, the party changed its strategy the very next day to demanding the resignation of the prime minister. The BJP stalled the House proceedings for a whole week.
Three reports tabled on August 17 do not question any policy and are clearly focussed on the impropriety and irregularities in not implementing the relevant policies. The unique constitutional position of CAG allows him to determine the scope and extent of his functions. While quoting the Constitution in the early years, the then Vice President Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan said in the Rajya Sabha that the officials of the CAG’s department have to serve the country and not just the government. Several statements by luminaries in the Lok Sabha and rulings by Speaker M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar have settled the issue as to whether honourable members of the House can or cannot question his conduct. They cannot, unless they bring a substantive motion against him.
Accepting the obligation to make a statement in the House on a matter of public importance, the prime minister first tried to read out a statement in the House, then simply tabled it and with a rare display of righteous indignation in front of the press, waiting outside, he said he took full responsibility and denied the allegations of impropriety in allocation of coal blocks raised vociferously by the BJP in the House.
Interestingly, he also wistfully recited a couplet to the effect that in the din of questioning, he remains self-assured about his honour. That was a poetic moment, both for a man tossed between pillar and post as well as for those watching him.
His legalistic statement contained practically nothing beyond what the officers of the department have said in the course of three exit conferences that CAG’s officers conducted to ensure they had verified the facts and explanations of the government before the report was finalised. The prime minister has only made two noteworthy points in his statement.
The first point contests CAG’s view that competitive bidding could have been introduced in 2006 by amending the administrative arrangements. In prime minister’s view, CAG has read the advice of the Law Ministry on this matter selectively. A simple reading of the relevant para in CAG’s report would make it amply clear that he has considered in detail the entire set of advices given by the Law Ministry and that he has arrived at a specific audit conclusion differing with the contention of the Coal Ministry which tried to intertwine the advice of the Law Ministry on two separate references. The Law Ministry had categorically mentioned on July 28, 2006 that the competitive route could be adopted through administrative arrangements. Amendment in the Act was advised by the Law Ministry in August 2006 on the request of the Coal Ministry that the process be given legal footing.
In contrast to the cut in his point that CAG’s judgment is flawed and arises out of selective reading of the advice of the Law Ministry, the thrust of his defence, is : “In retrospect, I would readily agree that in a world where things can be done by fiat, we could have done it faster. But, given the complexities of the process of consensus building in our parliamentary system, this is easier said than done“. The plea of building consensus is, of course, understandable in a parliamentary democracy, but not at such a huge cost to public interest. The makers of our Constitution, no doubt, placed a great premium on striving for consensus and advised amicability in the relations between the Union and the States.
The PM should not have taken full responsibility. To weigh the cut and thrust in his statement, the distinction between an irregularity and an impropriety needs to be borne in mind. An irregularity is committed when a law, rule or regulation or even convention is transgressed. An impropriety, in the context of government, refers to a failure to act according to standards and expectations of citizens from a holder of an office. The rampant irregularities committed by the screening committee between the first thought about competitive bidding and the final action, cited in CAG’s report and being exposed daily, appear like a hideous dream that could prove to be crucial in determining the impropriety in our prime minister’s conduct when the PAC examines the matter. The political circumstance of a restive polity may not allow for much time for the Committee to arrive at its recommendations.
(The writer is Former DG, CAG.)
Don't cancel coal blocks, levy high royalties instead: Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
colllected from Economic Times
cancel the allocations. That would be politically, legally and economically wrong.
Politically, it will look like a confession of crookedness. Neither the CAG nor anybody else has produced any evidence of kickbacks. That makes it very different from the 2G case.
The CAG estimated that 2G spectrum auctions might have fetched Rs 1.86 lakh crore. But that was a criticism of policy, not evidence of kickbacks. Former telecom minister Raja was indicted not for failure to auction spectrum but because he perverted the first-come first-served policy into a first-served then-come policy, favouring friends.
There is no such evidence in the coal block case. If the Congress cancels all coal allocations, as it has cancelled 2G spectrum, it will send voters the message that it is as guilty as Raja. That would be politically stupid.
It would be even more wrong on the grounds of justice or economic sense. The rule of law implies penalties only for the guilty, not for all allottees. Cancellations will be right only where there is evidence of kickbacks. Cancellations may also be justified where companies have sat on coal blocks without any effort to develop them. But not in other cases.
Some companies have raised thousands of crores in equity and loans to finance new projects for power, cement and steel, based on their allocations. India badly needs these projects. If you now kill these projects by cancelling their coal allocations, who will invest in future?
Ever since Independence, central and state governments have allocated lucrative permits of all sorts. In the heyday of socialism, industrial licences were gold mines. So were import licences and forex permits. Were these auctioned? Never. So, why focus only on coal since 2004? Why not on every allocation since Independence? Can these all be cancelled?
With economic liberalisation, some licences stand abolished. So, nobody pays kickbacks today for industrial and import licences, or foreign exchange. But humungous central and state government controls remain in natural resources. These controls, supposedly in the public interest, have been misused for private gain.
The most hilarious example of misuse relates to the scam ending the political career of Andhra Pradesh governor N D Tiwari. Photos of him cavorting with three naked prostitutes were made public by the madam of the brothel. Why did she expose him? Because Tiwari had promised her a mining licence but did not deliver. Her expose caused much merriment. Yet it is hardly a laughing matter that in India, even brothel-owners can aspire to be allocated mines.
केंद्र ने की बंदरबांट
मुख्यमंत्री नीतीश कुमार ने शनिवार को कहा कि केंद्र को गैर यूपीए दलवाली राज्य सरकारों को उनका वाजिब हक देने में भी कठिनाई होती है. बिहार के साथ तो हमेशा भेदभाव होता रहा है, लेकिन अब यह दुर्दिन दूर होनेवाला है.
केंद्र सरकार ने बिहार के ताप बिजलीघरों के लिए कोल लिंकेज नहीं दिया, लेकिन, अयोग्य कंपनियों को मुफ्त में कोल ब्लॉक बांट दिया. हमें विश्वास है कि केंद्र में अगली सरकार एनडीए की होगी. वह लोकनायक जयप्रकाश नारायण प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान का उद्घाटन करने के बाद समारोह को संबोधित कर रहे थे.
मुख्यमंत्री ने कहा कि सूबे में अब भी अभियंताओं, चिकित्सकों या कनीय अभियंताओं की कमी है. बेतिया, पावापुरी व मधेपुरा के मेडिकल कॉलेज खोलने में केंद्रीय एजेंसियां जान-बूझ कर अड़ंगा डाल रही है. हम और भी तकनीकी शिक्षा संस्थान स्थापित करना चाहते हैं, लेकिन उन्हें मंजूरी देने में केंद्र सहयोग नहीं कर रहा है. अभी सूबे की आधारभूत संरचनाओं-बिजली, सड़क, पुल, पुलिया आदि का विकास करना बाकी है. मैंने सात वर्षो के अपने कार्यकाल में चुनौतियों को अवसरों में तब्दील किया है. बिजली को भी मैंने चुनौती के रूप में लिया है. केंद्र सरकार बिहार में राष्ट्रीय उच्च मार्गो की मरम्मत व रख-रखाव तक का पैसा नहीं दे रही है. राज्य सरकार अपने पैसे खर्च कर सड़कें बनवा रही है. हमारे पैसे भी वापस नहीं किये जा रहे हैं.
भाजपा के राष्ट्रीय प्रवक्ता राजीव प्रताप रूडी ने कहा कि देश में भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ माहौल बन रहा है. प्रधानमंत्री पर कोल ब्लॉक घोटाला का सीधा आरोप है. सभा की अध्यक्षता विज्ञान एवं प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्री गौतम सिंह ने की, जबकि स्वागत विज्ञान एवं प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग के प्रधान सचिव अरुण कुमार सिंह ने किया. सभा को श्रम संसाधन मंत्री जनार्दन सिंह सीग्रीवाल, पर्यटन मंत्री सुनील कुमार पिंटू, विप के उपसभापति सलीम परवेज आदि ने भी संबोधित किया.
मौके पर विधायक कृष्ण कुमार उर्फ मंटू सिंह, ज्ञानचंद मांझी, छोटे लाल राय, विनय सिंह, पूर्व सांसद लाल बाबू राय, पूर्व विधायक लाल बाबू राय, नप अध्यक्ष शोभा देवी, भाजपा जिलाध्यक्ष वंशीधर तिवारी, जदयू जिलाध्यक्ष दिनेश सिंह, इ सच्चिदानंद राय समेत जिले के सभी प्रशासनिक पदाधिकारी मौजूद थे.
एक मूर्खता से उठी आंधी
।।एमजे अकबर।।
एडिटोरियल डायरेक्टर, इंडिया टुडे
सार्वजनिक जीवन में कौन-सा अपराध बड़ा है, भ्रष्टाचार या मूर्खता? इस सवाल का जवाब देने के लिए आप समय ले सकते हैं. अगर भ्रष्टाचार राजनीतिक मृत्युदंड होता, तो यूपीए कैबिनेट का अधिकांश हिस्सा 2009 के चुनावों में जीत हासिल नहीं करता. संभवत: भ्रष्टाचार का आकलन उसके फैलाव से किया जाता है.
एडिटोरियल डायरेक्टर, इंडिया टुडे
सार्वजनिक जीवन में कौन-सा अपराध बड़ा है, भ्रष्टाचार या मूर्खता? इस सवाल का जवाब देने के लिए आप समय ले सकते हैं. अगर भ्रष्टाचार राजनीतिक मृत्युदंड होता, तो यूपीए कैबिनेट का अधिकांश हिस्सा 2009 के चुनावों में जीत हासिल नहीं करता. संभवत: भ्रष्टाचार का आकलन उसके फैलाव से किया जाता है.
जब भ्रष्टाचार का स्नेहक बड़ी लूट में तब्दील हो जाता है, तब वोटर तय करता है कि अब बहुत हो चुका. प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह के लिए यह संसद सत्र काफी मुश्किल भरा रहा. कोल ब्लॉक आवंटन में विपक्षी दलों के हमले का नुकसान प्रधानमंत्री से अधिक कांग्रेस को होगा, क्योंकि खराब समय में भी उन पर लूट से आंखें मूंदे रहने का ही आरोप लगेगा. लाभार्थी वे लोग हैं, जिन्होंने इस लूट का लाभ कुछ राजनीतिक दलों, खासकर कांग्रेस को पहुंचाया. लेकिन, शायद वह अकेली ऐसी पार्टी है, जिसने इस रास्ते का प्रयोग जन-कल्याण के नाम पर किया.
कोयले के इस खेल में शामिल लोगों की सूची में केवल राजनेताओं के दोस्त और रिश्तेदार ही नहीं, बल्कि इसकी पहुंच मीडिया तक है. कुछ मीडिया मालिक सत्ताधारियों की चापलूसी का रास्ता अख्तियार अपनी मांग रखते हैं और उन्हें इसका इनाम मिल जाता है. ये ऐसे खुलासे हैं, जो गेहूं से चोकर को अलग करते हैं या स्वतंत्र मीडिया को देशद्रोही से. सत्ता पर काबिज राजनेता हर समय मीडिया के साथ जीते हैं, अगर कुछ समय के लिए रिश्ता मैत्रीपूर्ण न भी हो, तो भी.
इसलिए यह आश्चर्यजनक नहीं है कि वे कभी भी स्वतंत्र पत्रकारिता के चरित्र को समझने की कोशिश नहीं करते हैं. इस व्यापार से संबंधित एक व्यक्ति ने खबर के बारे में कहा कि यह ऐची चीज है जिसे हर कोई छुपाना चाहता है. यह विरोधाभास तर्कसंगत है. कभी-कभार खबर को नष्ट करने का सबसे आसान तरीका है प्रेस कांफ्रेस आयोजित कर देना. अगर आप कुछ छिपाना नहीं चाहते, तो इसमें किसी की रुचि नहीं होगी. मीडिया का दूसरा पहलू राय देना और विश्लेषण करना है. हालांकि सत्ता में बैठे एक राजनेता को असहमत होने का अधिकार है. लेकिन उसे किसी हुनरमंद वकील की तरह अपनी बात साबित करनी होती है. संभव है, ऐसा करते हुए वह अपने लिए एक आभा मंडल खड़ा कर ले या फिर ध्वस्त हो जाये. लेकिन जब दलीलें गले से न उतरने वाली हों तो वे खुद को ही नुकसान पहुंचा लेते हैं.
दो मसले गवाह हैं. 2जी और ‘कोलगेट’ मामला.
नजरिये के साथ एक विशेष पहलू जुड़ा है. आप चाहें तो उसे तवज्जो दें या नजरअंदाज कर दें. राजनेता की यह मानवीय कमजोरी है कि प्रशंसा से वे खुश हो जाते हैं, लेकिन आलोचना पर चुप्पी साध लेते हैं. लेकिन कई बार उसकी यह कोशिश उलटी भी पड़ जाती है. अगर कोई समझदार मंत्री या फिर प्रधानमंत्री किसी लेखक की आलोचना का जवाब नहीं देता, तो वह पाठक को जवाब नहीं दे रहा होता है. क्योंकि लेखक की आलोचना के साथ ही पाठक जवाब का इंतजार करता है.
नजरिये के साथ एक विशेष पहलू जुड़ा है. आप चाहें तो उसे तवज्जो दें या नजरअंदाज कर दें. राजनेता की यह मानवीय कमजोरी है कि प्रशंसा से वे खुश हो जाते हैं, लेकिन आलोचना पर चुप्पी साध लेते हैं. लेकिन कई बार उसकी यह कोशिश उलटी भी पड़ जाती है. अगर कोई समझदार मंत्री या फिर प्रधानमंत्री किसी लेखक की आलोचना का जवाब नहीं देता, तो वह पाठक को जवाब नहीं दे रहा होता है. क्योंकि लेखक की आलोचना के साथ ही पाठक जवाब का इंतजार करता है.
चूंकि यह विरोधाभास की रीति बन रही है, तो क्यों न इसे गवर्नेस चलाने के कानून में तब्दील कर दें? मीडिया प्रबंधन के लिए सरकार द्वारा चयनित खबसे खराब व्यक्ति पत्रकार होता है. इस संस्कृति में ऐसा कुछ है कि न्यूजरूम से सरकारी कार्यालय में तबादला, पत्रकार को नये धर्म परिवर्तित व्यक्ति के सबसे खराब उदाहरण में बदल देता है. एक पुरानी कहावत है कि नया धर्म परिवर्तित व्यक्ति दिन में सात बार प्रार्थना करता है. ऐसे में जब उसे खबर को ठीक करने के लिए कहा जाता है तो वह पत्रकार को ही ठीक करने की कोशिश करने लगता है. आक्रामकता अहं को बढ़ा देती है और छिपे हुए भ्रष्टाचार को इस अनुपात में आगे कर देती है कि वह लक्ष्य के लिए नहीं, बल्कि सरकार के लिए जहरीली हो जाती है.
एक गैर जरूरी मामले को आंधी में तब्दील कर दिया गया जब प्रधानमंत्री के आधिकारिक मीडिया सलाहकार ने सोचा कि वे वाशिंगटन पोस्ट के पत्रकार साइमन डेनेयर को दबा देंगे. इस प्रक्रिया में उन्होंने भारतीय पत्रकारों को भी एकपक्षीय खबर लिखने का आरोप लगाकर कठोर संदेश देने की कोशिश की. इस विदेशी पत्रकार ने भारत के प्रधानमंत्री की आलोचना करके अक्षम्य व्यवहार करने की हिम्मत दिखायी. अगर इसका मकसद डेनेयर को नियंत्रित करना था तो इसका उल्टा प्रभाव हुआ.
अगर इसका उद्देश्य भारतीय मीडिया को डराना था, तो परिणाम और भी खराब होते. ऐसी खबर जिसकी अनदेखी की जा सकती थी, वह सुर्खियों में आ गयी. जब सरकार मौके खोती है तो मीडिया उलट-पुलट और असफलता का आईना बन जाता है. सरकार पत्रकारों को तभी प्यार करती है, जब स्थितियां अनुकूल होती हैं. प्रेस की आजादी सरकार की सौगात नहीं है. यह एक अहस्तांतरणीय संवैधानिक अधिकार है. अधिकारी आते हैं और कभी-कभार जिस तेजी से आते हैं उससे भी तेज गति से चले भी जाते हैं. संविधान तब तक जीवित रहेगा, जब तक लोकतंत्र जीवित रहेगा
No comments:
Post a Comment