Must you speak with forked tongue?

I just finished listening to another TV debate moderated by Arnab Goswami. One of the participants was Kamal Faruqi, the new Samajwadi spokesperson. Must admit that as the debate meandered through familiar territory, ie the moderator confronting the spokesperson with facts, the spokesperson making a valiant effort to deflect, the moderator coming back at him, the spokesperson raising the decibel, the counter view being solicited from the political opponent, then a free for all shouting session with – the main issue for discussion was conveniently forgotten.

We are witness to this farcical saga day after day. And even a part-time follower of TV news bulletins such as I, will feel a sense of exasperation; and perhaps stifle a yawn.

On this occasion Arnab had invited Faruqi to explain how Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya, the new Minister for Prisons in Akhilesh Yadav’s Cabinet could just be 38 years old as he had deposed in an affidavit before the Election Commission.

Raja Bhaiya as it turns out was first elected to the State Assembly in 1993. Which would make him 19 at the time of his first election. Quite clearly this was absurd as that would have rendered him ineligible at the time.

Faruqi waffled. And waffled again. Then he spluttered a statement to the effect that the newly sworn in Chief Minister was unaware of the deposition.

I knew otherwise, as I had watched Rahul Kanwal on Headlines Today moderate another debate on the very same issue. And as Rahul displays less aggression, he was subjected to merciless hollering by Shahid Siddiqui, the other Samajwadi Party spokesperson. And the interesting aspect here was PL Punia who had appeared on behalf of Congress (Indira). He could see nothing in the conduct of Raja Bhaiya to suggest illegality or moral turpitude.

I might add that I had heard of Punia as an IAS officer who was very close to his political masters at the time – the Bahujan Samaj Party. Later on, he switched over to Congress and was appointed to a statutory post. I was able to put a face to the name only after he made mandatory appearances on every channel during the film Aarakshan dispute when he tried to be as minatory as his profile permitted, by wagging his finger at everyone and declaring, “Mind your language! I am more than an ordinary everyday person; I am a Constitutional authority!”

People are of course free to draw their own inferences of this conduct, but suffice it to say that Punia did try to ban the film only for the Supreme Court to nullify that ban. But would we be too off the mark to wonder whether his knowledge of what constitutes illegality – which he must have acquired during his training as an IAS officer – has now totally betrayed him. Or whether his political party requires him to overlook the most fundamental principle of our jurisprudence – that making a false statement under oath qualifies as perjury, which is a criminal offence. It was obvious to everyone who watched this command performance that the Congress was trying to work out a harmonious equation with the Samajwadi Party. And surely no one would begrudge them that. But when it involves turning a blind eye to the criminal actions of your supposed potential ally, I believe we are all entitled to ask questions.

Coming back to Faruqi’s feigned ignorance on March 20, 2012 (when this issue had already been discussed on Headlines Today on the March 18, 2012) was a blatant example of what I would describe as an instance of ‘predetermined inexactitude’ (Sir Winston Churchill-please forgive me). I know a few others would simply call it ‘lying though one’s teeth’.

Charles De Gaulle had once very astutely remarked: “A politician never believes what he says.”

And in all fairness, I have to say that what Faruqi has not broken from the ranks and is doing was not very different from what the other political party spokespersons indulge in. In that regard he is keeping very good company. We all know that none of these party spokespersons actually believe a word of what they routinely spout on the idiot-box.

Time and again, the BJP spokesperson Nirmala Seetharaman gets on the back-foot when the Supreme Court passes strictures against her party or when her own party members start scoring self goals. Despite her obvious articulation and her ability to avoid getting rattled when her political opponents holler at her, one cannot help feeling sorry for her plight.

The other two BJP spokespersons, RP Rudy and SN Singh have their own set of problems. Rudy does not have the lung power to counter his opponents and looks distinctly ill at ease. SN Singh lacks sufficient coherence to justify being a mouthpiece of a political organ.

Their chief spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad does bring with him a profound jurist’s acumen and does not get intimidated because of the facts at his disposal. But even here I witnessed that on one programme he declined to get into a discussion with Congress (Indira) spokesperson, Rajiv Shukla. Understandably so, as Shukla is married to his younger sister and Prasad bowed to Indian tradition and refused to argue with his brother-in-law in public.

Moving on to the BSP, their spokesperson, Bhadauria lacks the most rudimentary decorum I would expect from a spokesperson. That he is incoherent does not help matters.

The real theatre of the absurd though is represented by the Congress (Indira) spokespersons.

Rashid Alvi does not bring any credibility with him. The fact that he has been in nearly every major party and even served as spokesperson of one – BSP – makes him a very poor choice indeed if the party wishes to project credibility.

Manish Tewari used to revel in arrogance and through that tried to deflect the issue under discussion, but much of his bravado has vanished after he was forced to do a volte face in regard to the Anna Hazare fiasco. In fact, after his public admission that he was prone to making irrelevant and inappropriate comments for the sake of politics, he presents himself as a much more circumspect figure who knows that the jury is now out on him.

However the most ludicrous piece of ‘spokesmanship’ comes from Abhishek Manu Singhvi. He is presented as a legal eagle and generally perceived to be so. But the number of times he has been given a dressing down by the different Supreme Court benches in the recent years makes me seriously question this perception. More than once he has been wrong-footed, the most egregious instances being when he was expected to defend the induction of Venod Sharma, the father of the murderer Manu Sharma in the Haryana Cabinet. He would have us believe that Venod was a paragon of virtue who had nothing to do with the sordid saga. Even Sonia Gandhi had found that too much to stomach and Venod was fired within 48 hours. More recently, when faced with uncomfortable questions, he walked out of a debate on Anna Hazare in a TV interview.

If I was to take Singhvi at face value, I may end up believing that the BJP was responsible for every ill that has beset the country. Singhvi follows the dictum that if you keep on shouting and abusing your opponents, your misdemeanours will get concealed. And his legendary arrogance is a very poor reflection of a person who is uncomfortable with any genial trait in his personality. Worth noting here that the party he is always so ready to blame for everything was the one his recently deceased father was a member of.

Renuka Chaudhry is a person who, in Singhvi’s mould, tries to deflect any logical questioning by resorting to sporadic bouts of feigned contempt for anyone who does not follow her projected logic, and clearly does not think it is necessary to have commands of facts at her disposal.

All these spokespersons as is reflected here do not carry the level of credibility I would desire from a political party I would wish to support. Their sagacity quotient leaves much to be desired, and their unashamed forays into prolonged bouts of mendacity often make me wonder why is it that the media feel the necessity to let them indulge in their charades day after day.

I have often wondered if the party spokespersons should be brought under the ambit of the Press Council as they perform a journalistic duty. There are problems with this of course but perhaps someone can translate my desire to minimize the mendacity we witness daily.

PS – I have deliberately referred to one party as Congress (Indira). That is the way it is registered with the Election Commission, and if my memory serves me right the party came into being only in 1978. I believe that Congress (Indira)’s attempt to claim a lineage from the Indian National Congress is an affront to the great party that was founded in 1885.”

Image Source [http://www.flickr.com/photos/hiddedevries/599606659/sizes/l/in/photostream/]