ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Politicians and Commissions

The government of Maharashtra has rejected the Justice B N Srikrishna Commission report, saying it is against Hindus and will fan communal tension. The Commission has reportedly blamed Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray for fanning communal violence that broke out in Bombay in January 1993, and given evidence to that effect. It is considered an extremely damning report. Coincidentally, the government in Maharashtra comprises the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party.

On the other hand, the BJP government at the Centre has, on the basis of the findings of the Justice Milap Chand Jain Commission's final report, decided that three persons will be investigated further. They are tantrik Chandra Swami, Janata Party president Dr Subramanian Swamy, and Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi. The last two are in opposition to the BJP and its ally, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagham, respectively. Is that also a coincidence?

Two Commissions, two findings. One rejected because it went against the boss of the ruling party, the other accepted because it sought action against certain members in the Opposition!

The Srikrishna Commission report raises even more questions that concern the nation directly. The rejection of the report by the Shiv Sena government is no surprise: did anyone really believe that the Sena government would actually accept a report that blasted them in general, and Thackeray, in particular? Are we crazy to assume that the "remote-controlled" Manohar Joshi, who also happens to be the chief minister of Maharashtra, would take action against his own boss and thereby destroy whatever future he has (not that he has much anyway, if media reports are to be believed)? This raises the question: should the report have been submitted to the government when it is the main culprit in the report?

Then we have the Jain Commission, whose interim report, without sufficient evidence, blamed the DMK for alleged links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Very curiously, Justice Jain ignored the fact that it was the Congress under their assassinated leader Rajiv Gandhi, who actually nurtured the LTTE, and even asked the DMK to be the link with the LTTE; that it was the Congress which trained the LTTE and gave birth to Prabhakaran even as he massacred Sinhalese besides the Tamils who disagreed with him.

Anyway, when the interim report was tabled, the Congress created bedlam and brought down the I K Gujral government. The Congress simply refused to let the report be discussed, making the unreasonable demand that the DMK ministers be sacked from the government.

Strangely, the Congress (preceding the BJP) has chosen to ignore reports that it finds inconvenient. A decade ago, the Thakkar Commission inquiring into the assassination of Indira Gandhi, pointed a finger at one R K Dhawan. Indira Gandhi's son, Rajiv, then prime minister of India, ignored the findings. Today, Dhawan is one of the Congress general secretaries -- the party is now led by Indira Gandhi's daughter-in-law Sonia.

What, then, is the worth of all these commissions set up to probe into the various acts and events that need investigation? What purpose do they serve if, in the end, politicians simply do what is politically convenient, and use reports to gain petty points? Can India afford such commissions that cost time, money and huge effort and finally give results that can be simply rejected at will or accepted only if suitable? Can we continue to give politicians so much liberty to dispense justice, when it is they who are often the guilty party?

It has been suggested that in the case of the Srikrishna Commission, the way out might be to file a public interest litigation in the courts to force the government to take action at least in those areas where there is sufficient evidence. This will mean another round of judicial activism, yet this cannot be an answer for the long term.

What is very clearly needed is a proper mechanism to deal with commissions and their reports. The country needs a system which ensures that commissions of inquiry are, firstly, based on evidence and not allegation, and secondly, that action is taken where ever called for. This need not mean a blanket acceptance of all commissions (after the Jain report, who'd ever want that?) but for a system that is less political and more fair in dealing with the commission's reports. The Jain Commission also makes it necessary that any mechanism set up ensures that commission reports are not partisan to the benefit of a particular political party and the detriment of the other.

Commission reports cannot, and must not, be simply treated as political tools, nor must politicians alone have sole rights over the findings. This becomes especially important in light of the massive corruption that pervades Indian politics, and the fact that many commissions might soon probe the activities of the politicians themselves. Will the politicians or political parties ever accept any report that indicts them? Extremely unlikely. Can India allow that?

Of course, politicians cannot, and must never be, cut out completely from governance. After all, they are the nation's elected representatives which, for instance, judges are not. But in a situation where it is the politicians who are the culprits, they cannot also be expected to be their jury. That goes against the grain of any kind of justice. And will harm India no end.

How Readers responded to Amberish K Diwanji's latest column

Amberish K Diwanji