Recently the Managing Director of a State owned bus corporation was suspended by the TN government. His crime: he allowed printing of the photograph of Mayor Stalin on an invitation pertaining to a government function, which was against the standing rules as Stalin was not a participant in the event.
A month back, the Chief Minister, his Cabinet colleagues and the entire ruling party boycotted a function at the public sector MFL which was attended by the Finance Minister Chidambaram. The reason: The management of MFL failed to invite the Chief Minister in a proper manner.
When Karunanidhi chastised a ministerial colleague on the fire-walking episode, it was sought to be projected as his natural revulsion to an irrational act, not befitting a Minister hailing from the Dravidian movement. There was also the case of an MLA getting entangled in a sandalwood smuggling racket, which put the government in a spot and forced it to eat its own words.
These are just a few of the instances in which the CM has pulled up overzealous party men for embarrassing indiscretions, but every time only after it was pointed out by the media or the Opposition.
The eagerness of the government or the Chief Minister to project itself or himself as being sensitive to public opinion, true to a fault but strict on procedures, is quite apparent such instance.
No doubt the government has demonstrated its accountability to the people who elected whenever possible and whenever it deemed it expedient to do so. We also do appreciate the government efforts to project a holier than thou image to the public.
Very noble indeed, and we are happy to learn that we have a regime that is sensitive and respects probity in politics.
But then, the governmentâs handling of one popular issue sticks out like a sore thumb and does not jell with its professed practices. The allusion is to the Veerappan episode, where we humbly feel, the government has floundered in coming out with a clean image. We do appreciate the governmentâs keenness in bringing the brigand to the mainstream for, after all, it is divine to forgive. We do realise that there is nothing wrong in being a little sympathetic to bandits, that too when lives of hostages are at stake. It is also alright if a prolific murderer is given some room space in our midst and some of his reasonable requests are accommodated as even the devil must get its due. Therefore, we wish to dispel any notion that we are doubting the intentions of the government which are quite honourable.
Neither are we questioning the governmentâs wisdom or its credentials in negotiating the surrender of the brigand and exploring the possibility of amnesty albeit as per law to the outlaw. But then the world is full of skeptics, cynics and doubting Thomases, who steadfastly refuse to see the right side, i.e., the Veerappan side of the story and keep castigating the government for its helplessness against the brigand. But going by the stated policy of the government to correct its mistakes, no matter who points it out, we can now expect it to silence these pests by dispelling their misgivings, how so ever misplaced they are. Here are some impertinent questions:
Could not have the government, sent an unarmed government official along with the unofficial yet government approved emissary for negotiations with Veerappan? Such a move would have dispelled the feeling that the government itself was at the mercy of the brigand and the emissary, who in fact took two of his men into the forest. We also do not know if such a thought did occur to the government but was shot down by either the brigand or the emissary.
What was the compulsion in allowing the emissary to carry equipment to videograph the negotiations, when he was going into the jungles on behalf of the government and not for a journalistic assignment? Does the government expect the people to believe that what was subsequently displayed was the uncensored version of what transpired? Does the government itself believe that what was displayed to it was the uncensored version? First, can it say with certainty that whatever transpired had been fully pictured or some vital scenes might have been left out?
What is the wisdom of the government in allowing the emissary to have complete control over the video cassettes of his forays into jungle? That too when the emissary is only supposed to represent the government? Did it not occur to the government that the cassettes, censored or uncensored, may constitute evidence under law and it is the police or the STF who are entitled to first access to them? Also why did the emissary keep the cassettes for two days before handing them over to the government?
Also, why did the government not take charge of the hostages once they were outside the domain of the brigand? Why did it have to wait till the emissary himself chose to hand them over? Were they also not evidence under law and needed to be interrogated first by the police? Was the emissaryâs exclusive access to Veerappan at will, qualification enough for the government to bestow its unqualified trust on him or was their any otherâŠ..?
The STF till date have not been disbanded. The brigand has till date not surrendered. So things are back to square one. Will the government now break its silence and spell out its stand vis-a-vis Veerappan? Is it going to renew its efforts to nab Veerappan by activating the STF? Canât the new dispensation identify one police officer who is ready to, voluntarily or under orders take up the task of leading the STF to hunt down the brigand, as I am sure there would be no dearth for such brave men in our widely acclaimed police force? Or will it at least request the help of the emissary, who is more âtrustworthyâ, to nab Veerappan as it did to secure the release of the hostages?
Coming to more recent events, the government must have certainly been aware of the felicitation function of the emissary a couple of days back. We are sure it must have also seen the invitation to the function which had photographs of the bandit in various moods in abundance. Glorifying the brigand may be alright for the sponsors for he is their only USP. But knowing the allergy of the government to improper invitations, we wonder how it is that a State Minister, the City Mayor and a Central Minister graced the occasion despite the invitations projecting a man who is wanted for scores of crimes? If an officer can be penalised for being indiscreet or overzealous, pray what is the penalty for this overt glorification of a criminal by all the civilised men in full public view? Has the government, State and Centre and its various watchdog authorities taken cognisance of the event? Do they all, including men in power, realise that if there is a new regime and it decides to get tough with Veerappan, then they all may be held culpable based on their utterances? We are sure these video clippings of the function which was a high point of the entire episode, would offer better viewing for the public than even the surrender/hostage drama clippings.
Has the government conducted any enquiry on the alleged misdeeds of the STF personnel? If so, what is the basis for the Chief Ministerâs statement that the STF was busy chasing tribal women and not Veerappan? As if taking the cue, was it justified and fair for all the learned speakers, including an honourable Central Minister, to resort to unrelenting harangue against Dawaram? Had they all left their better judgment back at home before embarking on a virtual torrent of praise on the brigand while heaping inanities on the only policeman who dared to challenge the dreaded bandit?
Above all, have any of them, including the government, at least talked to Dawaram to know his opinion of the entire issue, for is he not a man with invaluable information which the government can use if it really intends to bring the brigand to book?
Is the government aware of the atmosphere it is wittingly or unwittingly creating in favour of Veerappan which may prove suicidal to itself in the long run? Why is the government and the emissary keen to convince all and sundry that it is next to impossible to nab Veerappan and it is best to make him surrender? Has this government during the one and a half years of rule, tried sincerely to nab the brigand? The earlier regime was at least chasing Veerappan, but is it not a fact that this regime has virtually given up, raising its arms in abject surrender? Has this government still not realised that creating good climate for criminals may end up to its own detriment as had happened in the past?
We do hope a sensitive government and a hypersensitive, image conscious Chief Minister would address these issues, if only in their own enlightened self-interest.
e-mail the writer at [email protected]