During a debate over corruption last week certain remarks led to desertion of Assembly’s press gallery. After a stand off for nearly three days, the business was as usual after the Speaker admitted that he didn’t mean what he said, a Kashmir Life report.
It all started with debate over corruption. As the state legislature met for the routine business (February 24) the PDP, the state’s principal opposition party wanted a discussion on the issue in the wake of serious allegations leveled against the government. Its members created ruckus during the question hour but the speaker Mohammad Akbar Lone, who rejected the party’s adjournment motion, didn’t relent. As the question hour was over and possibility of a discussion ripened up, the party staged a walkout.
When the discussion was finally permitted the next day afternoon, it was unimpressive from opposition as well as treasury benches. Muzaffar Hussain Beig, former Deputy Chief Minister, made a long speech in which he tackled the basic issues. People, he said, say the corruption is no issue as long as the government works. He referred to a speech by Taj Mohi-ud-Din in Srinagar last year suggesting that his team had to offer chai, pani to the people within the civil secretariat to get the documents pertaining to the NHPC operations in state. He made distinction between ‘guilty and proven guilty’ and said the sharks in the field of corruption are very difficult to be caught. However, he made a clear distinction about how the ruling alliance is managing it – showing door to Ghulam Mohammad Saroori and divesting the portfolio of Peerzada Mohammad Sayeed and nothing actually happening against anybody in the NC.
“It (speech) was not about corruption,” chief minister Omar Abdullah said in his response while winding up the debate. “It was targeted towards creating a gulf between NC and the Congress.”
Then, Omar started explaining things. “Had I known that Congress has a policy that the person against whom CBI is investigating cannot remain in power, I would have never sent Saroori Sahab’s case to the CBI,” Omar said. “But we are waiting for the response from CBI, once it clears him, he will get his status back.”
While highlighting his regime’s fight against corruption, Omar talked about a strong SAC, new law making and officials to deliver on public services and many other things. He mentioned Peerzada Sayeed as well. “Had I asked Sayeed Sahab to resign, he would have, but he gave it voluntarily,” Omar said, asserting, “The Crime Branch report nowhere says that whatever happened (in unfair means case of his foster son) happened on his (Peerzada’s) directions.”
Curtains fell with a dramatic coincidence. Omar charged PDP of making allegations against his government but later retracting it publicly. To this PDP president Ms Mehbooba Mufti reacted quite sharply: “We do it simply because we do not want to end like Haji Yousuf.” End of the debate that lacked substance.
Dialogues do die but debates do not. The house had a stormy beginning (February 27) as three ministers took strong exception to what was printed about them in the newspapers. It was a visibly shocked Health Minister Sham Lal, the erstwhile pharmacist, on his feet referring to a “concocted report” that appeared in Jammu’s major newspaper. “There is a ragging battle between two newspapers and we are being dragged unnecessarily,” Lal said, seeking help from the Speaker. A newspaper had leveled serious allegations against Health Ministry’s flip-flop with the private sector institutions and accused the system of seeking Hafta from the private players.
It was Taj Mohi-ud-Din and Ali Mohammad Sagar who were supportive of Lal and in favour of action against an “unbridled” media. The trio saw it as breach of privilege and chose against following Finance Minister Abdul Rahim Rather who convincingly responded to the allegation that SAC had leveled against him in past week. While Taj is facing a case in the High Court over land grabbing, Sagar has a long piece about him in another Jammu based newspaper.
Apparently reacting to the law minister’s statement that the particular newspaper lacks credibility, it alleged that Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) – where minister’s son was a Mayor – sold “building permissions during the stewardship of Haq Nawaz” in utter disregard to the Master Plan. The copy referred to the Rs 10 crore palace that ‘father of the city’ and his son built “on a piece of notified land, just outside the first entry point of Srinagar Airport” by pressurizing the Commissioner to “issue permission” in relaxation of all norms of propriety and moral binding.
The newspaper asked how a “poor politician” earning his livelihood “out of petty R&B works and a tipper in Jammu in 1996” rose to become owner of this Rs 10 crore property besides raising “two palatial houses worth Rs 6 crore at Roop Nagar and Sidhra in Jammu in six-year tenure as a Minister in 1996-2002.” It further alleged that the “Minister was on a buying spree and had acquired over 50 kanals of land at different spots on either side of National Highway Bypass from Nowgam to Bemina” besides purchasing (through his relatives) “60 kanals of an orchard, once owned by late Sadiq Ali’s father, at Kikker Mode, Chondpora, on Budgam-Beerwah Road.” It even accused the minister of beating up a Tehsildar who objected to “illegal annexation and grabbing of 10 kanals of Kahcharai land and construction of the boundary wall on the state land” in Budgam.
Seeing three ministers on their toes and seeking protection of their privilege, the Speaker initially suggested to Lal that he should move a privilege motion (he did it the same day) against the newspaper and he will do the needful. During zero hour, the issue was raised again, this time by (no)BJP member Prof Chaman Lal Gupta. “If the press didn’t write stories, how the democracy can flourish in the country including J&K?” Gupta asked.
But Speaker was furious. “How they (the media persons) were supposed to behave? I know ethics…How to make use of ethics? I will give my verdict today. Don’t try to become advocate of press. They are not at liberty to publish what they want. They are under my control. They have to disclose their sources. There is no PCI (Press Council of India),’’ the Speaker said.
PDP lawmaker Nizamuddin Bhat, a former reporter with the Eenadu Group, pointed out that reporters cannot be forced to reveal their sources. This right, he said, was acknowledged by the highest judicial bodies and in case the ministers have a problem with the media they can take up the issue with the Press Council of India.‘‘No, they have to disclose if asked for. Show me the rules, books’’, the Speaker shouted.
Media, watching the proceedings in the gallery was stunned. Within a few moments, they came out in protest. As the PDP followed, the house was immediately adjourned. Reporters sat on dharna outside the assembly and start seeking expunging of the words related to the “control” and “making them to reveal the sources”. They, however, made it clear that they respect the house and do not dispute the Speaker’s right to privileges along with the members. Efforts to neutralize the new crisis failed as Law Minister came half-heatedly to convince the media that the Speaker was right.
In the next sitting of the day, PDP returned to house. Ms Mufti made a long speech but nobody covered it, not even the official media. The same evening the party decided to stay away from the house as long as the media’s concerns are not addressed and the routine of the legislature restored.
The next day, Chief Minister who was supposed to wind up the debate on the governor’s address was keen that the media is counseled to return. But the ministers, especially the law minister, wanted the media to get punished for the “irresponsibility” they are used to in writing against the government. The law minister won the first round but it cost the government a blackout of the head of the government’s speech – the famous speech in which Omar talked about Mufti feeding reporters tasty wazwaan, something he is unable to do! Nobody, including Take-I that one of Chief Minister’s close aide’s family runs, carried it. There was, however, a shocking surprise – a Srinagar based newspaper carried it as the main lead.
Insiders suggested that Speaker Lone was informed the media was seeking an apology. This infuriated him and he at one point of time opted to put in his papers.
It was the last day of February when the media was waiting for around two hours outside the assembly expecting the concerned to come and break the impasse. They were actually communicated that it was happening. It did not happen.
It was independent lawmaker Engineer Rashid who sought the mandate of the house in going to the Press Club. Though his fellow lawmakers had hurled lot of allegations against him the other day – Congress termed him useless, Panthers dubbed him an IB man, BJP a Pakistani – on the recurring clemency issue debate of Afzal Guru, the house trusted him.
A mellowed and highly emotional Lone, halted the routine business – a monologue of three days, in absence of media and opposition, and clarified. “What I said is confined to the House and the galleries only as is provided in the rules,” he read out verbally from a statement, “Due to some communication gap, I spoke some words like control over media, which I shouldn’t have.” He regretted that Omar’s speech was blacked out “because of me”.
Later, he displayed more emotion. “There are certain people who try to exploit the situation for their vested interests,” he said. “But my biggest regret is that because of me the Chief Minister’s address could not get coverage. Still I’m grateful that he did not complain, did not utter even a single word to me on this account.” Omar had actually strongly suggested in the house that media should be somehow brought back to the gallery.
The Speaker was referred to “some journalists” who played a highly positive role in helping him mend fences with the media. A Jammu lensman asked him a question: Who were these people? Pat came the reply: Sources are sacred, cannot be revealed!
But the battle on front pages is not halting anyway, not at least in Jammu. The newspaper that was issued a notice for Lal’s privilege motion has replied insisting that the publication’s war against corruption will continue. Another newspaper has carried another long story – this time about how iron purchases fed the “son” of the “minister”. The job for SAC is getting murkier and difficult. Peerzada has managed a stay against SAC order for personal appearance. Even the Chief Minister got a temporary relief from High Court when the SAC proceedings on the political appointments were stayed. Long live the institutions and the battles they fight on remote control!
