The cement man: A R Antulay

The perennial brat

A. R. Antulay reminded me of the cartoon character Dennis the Menace. He looked like the brat that popular tales about him in the media reported. His death only brings to the fore the realisation that in his last years his life was fairly invisible.

He was the first victim-villain of an exposé. Long before sting operations, there was Arun Shourie. In the 80s, he, backed by the owner of Indian Express, went all out to unravel what came to be known as the Cement Scandal. All constructions of that period, with peeling plasters and shaky banisters, are attributed to one man. Antulay was the kickbacks man. He gave out-of-turn permits for more cement to builders who then 'donated' to the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan he had set up. To even a casual observer, it would be evident that you cannot start a trust in the name of the prime minister and get away with it unless the PM knows about it.

Cemented ties: with Indira Gandhi

Ramnath Goenka detested Indira Gandhi. Unlike media owners today, he did have an ideological reason. Arun Shourie was to be his hitman. In a series, he built up his case. It became a sensational piece of journalism in the truest sense of exposing the chief minister. The courts pronounced him guilty for the extortion of Rs. 30 crore. It sounds like peanuts today, but was a huge amount then. He, a barrister from Lincoln's Inn, could not defend himself. He probably knew that his only defence was that he was a 'loyalist', a word that encompasses all the flaws of chamchagiri but also possesses a kernel of genuine loyalty.

In Maharshtra, as one from the Konkan region he knew the terrain. It was his territory. But he would only be remembered as the man who gave cement a bad name, and of course as the man Shourie vanquished.

But he was not quite done. A little after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, he was back in the news. Unfortunately, even as he spoke out those words — “I said a man like Karkare is born among millions... Who pushed him into the trap of death? Who sent him there to be killed by the Pakistanis?’’ — I had a queasy feeling that he would be used.

Suddenly, Muslim leaders came out of the woodwork; maulanas stood up for him. That is what bothered me. To question something ought to be a part of democracy and civil society. Antulay had never been a Muslim leader. So, for him to be anointed the “Muslim messiah”, even though he had mentioned Pakistan terrorists, was reducing the argument to the lowest common denominator which we as a society are so good at doing.

Why did he speak out? “Nobody spoke. But I did. I said so because it has been found that a number of things are pushed under the carpet in the name of a state subject. A federal agency is being made... I said it at an opportune moment as a reminder of duty.’’

Many people want to know about Hemant Karkare. Many people were interested that the probe into the Malegaon blasts must not stop. Some wondered about bad timing. If anything, that was the only time to talk.

Antulay was planning to resign. He said so: “I am a self-respecting person... forget the resignation. That is a very simple thing. I had resigned from chief ministership of Maharashtra...when 100% of Congress MLAs were with me.’’ Asked about clarifications, he said, “A clarification is sought when something is hidden.”

I thought then, that whatever be his agenda if any, he should at least stick by his decision. He copped out, instead, with the take-home package of "too err is human" from the UPA-1 PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh for his rebellion. Antulay forgot all about what was pushed under the carpet. He returned to that wonderful portfolio of Minority Affairs Minister, the totem to beat all totems,

Was he an extortionist or a contortionist? A victim or a villain? Or will Antulay now be just the grey of a RIP?

Narendra Modi's Fatwa

It is no less than an edict, one which has prompted me to say, "yes, Prime Minister, but..."

Narendra Modi's advise to the ministers sounds school-marmish. Do they have any merit? Some do, some don't. His media-related comments are more important than the rest. Here are two quotes from separate reports:

• Sources said the Prime Minister also asked the MPs not to talk to the media as spokespersons of the party but raise the issues of their own area and constituency with them instead.

• The Prime Minister also advised the parliamentarians to refrain from giving comments to media on national issues. He said they should be polite while dealing with the media.

I completely agree. In the past few years, ministers have struck out on their own during primetime and hurt the party they represent. The ill-timed sound bytes have only given anchors a 'debate', and the issue those remarks are for is soon forgotten. The cacophony coterie thrived in this environment, and became known for outspokenness or idiocy, depending on which side they were on.

The fallout was retraction the morning after. More debates on being misquoted. More TV and print time. It did not matter what the subject was. From coal to land sharks to rape, these made up the rogues gallery. Other panelists, mainly from the media, shared a camaraderie with them. This ensured both got what they wanted — a story.

Most of them lacked expertise in the subject, and were there only due to their availability on speed dial. Why did they come to the studios night after night to be shouted down by anchors? And what did they do? It invariably ended up with the spokespersons protecting their leaders. A Catch-22 situation, no doubt.

It served no purpose. Even offending ministers were back, smiling or sneering, after being anointed/insulted by a media person whose own expertise came from the research done by her/his team. People elect leaders, not journalists. The former owes them responsibility and self-respect. They represent us.

In sensitive cases, there is also the danger of a preemptive remark interfering in a judicial probe. Not everybody is in a position to discuss national or international issues with any degree of conviction, unless they are directly handling that portfolio and have hands-on experience or have worked in the department.

What we know now is which party members are the favoured ones on what channel, which ought to be anathema for freedom of the press. We recall their quotes. Let us not forget how Mani Shankar Aiyer's "chaiwalla" comment gave the BJP and its then PM candidate a new identity, an emotional handle. The quotable quoters are elitist, as is the media that projects them.

Is there a flipside to this? Yes. Since the media is not terribly interested in work done in constituencies, for want of ministers to pin down they might not cover issue-based controversial news as much. Or, if they do, it might become a free-for-all with decoys speaking on behalf of the party. This will provide an easy exit for the head office. A shrug will suffice. If the PM is serious, he should have a team of dedicated spokespersons who do as much homework as he expects from Parliamentarians.

Another reason I welcome this media 'layoff' is that the ball will be in the court of the PM. It is his diktat, his choice to stay away, his ministers are responsible for everything they say.

The media, in fact, has the upper hand here. For every Giriraj Singh utterance, they can go straight to the PMO.

Is the directive dictatorial? No. It would be if there is a complete disconnect between the media and ministers. The media is not being muzzled. As someone who has been right in there, as also an avid objective and, need I emphasise, cynical observer, newspaper and TV journalists will have to rely on independently-investigated stories. It is no secret that 'sources' are often dissenters or opponents. The information is fed to the media, and that becomes a 'scoop'.

Is there a flipside to this too? Yes. The ministers who won't talk about national issues might try and whitewash a few glaring stains in order to please their leader. They might then not feel the need to address the problem because it is not visible, and there are no checks on it.

This does not sound simple because it is not. Therefore, I've tried to give two arguments.

Regarding the other diktats, they are self-evident. Except that doing away with sycophancy is not restricted to dissuading feet-touching. It is good as symbolism, though. We did see Modi during his campaigns touching the feet of elderly voters, and on his first day in Parliament touching the steps of the "temple of democracy". Such gestures are unnecessary, precisely because of the nature of our democracy.

His comment on 'service providers' is interesting: "Before you know it you will find yourself beholden to these people. And it will be difficult to shake them off even if you want to."

Is this restricted only to the ministers in his cabinet? What about the industrialists? He does know there is no free lunch, right?

One cannot also ignore the fact that his short lecture to the ministers came after he superseded them to meet the bureaucrats alone. It is one thing to help streamline procedure and quite another to be the sole authority. I am afraid, but a mindset cannot alter overnight. Bureaucrats are accustomed to pretending to take orders. You give them a carte blanche to handle things and they might change, but only superficially. Instead of going through a layer of benefactors, they will now feel empowered to be answerable only to one.

Narendra Modi is a man in a hurry. That is the problem. He is too busy cutting off branches and painting flowers on the trunks of trees.

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: TOI

Report sources:
Indian Express and IBN