It is difficult to make sense of the diversionary chaos over the Judeo video. As part of the BJP’s firefighting strategy, the focus is being deliberately shifted to secondary issues like who filmed the tape, who fetched it to The Indian Express office or who mastermindeded the entire operation. But by harping on these trivial issues, the BJP leadership is trying to confuse people.The core issue is simple: did Dilip Singh Judeo take a bribe or did he not? On the tape, it was evident he happily raised the bundle of cash to his forehead and peppered the acceptance with an indulgent dose of poetry. What’s more, thanks to his garrulous personal assistant Natwar Rateria, the motive also came through. The briber was seeking a mining licence and the minister accepted money from him.Now insights into the background of the filming of this episode may educate curious minds. But can those details take away from the minister’s recorded act of corruption?Ironically, those who are trying defend Judeo by bringing in irrelevant questions are the same people who attacked the late Rajiv Gandhi on the Bofors issue, without an iota of proof. His security was withdrawn and, as a result, he lost his life. Rs 450 crore has already been spent in investigating a so called scandal of Rs 65 crore! The overdrive didn’t spare even a dead Rajiv and chargesheeted him posthumously.All this when even Ram Jethmalani, one of the prime movers of the Bofors case, has repeatedly said in Parliament and the courtroom that there is no proof against ‘‘poor Rajiv Gandhi’’. Despite a former law minister saying this, the BJP invokes Bofors during every election. But when BJP leaders take bribes, not the criminal act but the so called plot behind bringing it to public notice becomes the issue.CBI as beast of burdenIn the past few months, the CBI has found its hands full. The agency has taken over the Taj corridor case, the Madhumita murder case, Judeo video case, CAT paper leak case, violence in Assam against Biharis case. And now with the Telgi stamp scandal on its plate, its simply been heaped with more. It is too much to expect the CBI to handle so many cases and still maintain the standards desired of it.To ensure a quality probe, cases should be referred to the CBI only sparsely. It should be the last resort, when state agencies fail. Effort should be made to equip agencies like the state vigilance departments, the CID and crime branch of the local police to ably handle the bulk of regular cases.The CBI is reeling under manpower shortage. It needs funds for modernisation — to upgrade weapons and investigating tools. Over the years, investigation methods have undergone a massive change, with sophisticated gadgets playing a key role in detection and analysis. We are certainly not keeping pace with the West.The government must seek the consent of the CBI director before handing over a case to the agency. Unless the CBI chief feel confident that he has enough resources for a fresh case at a certain time, it is quite pointless to refer them to him. Last but not the least, the need to isolate politics from crime and criminals cannot be overstressed. Cases should be handed over on merit and not for ‘‘political considerations’’.Setting the rules of the gameThe Union government needs to evolve a longterm policy for the selection of foreign secretaries. Either the seniormost officer in the department gets the top job or the foreign secretary is given a fixed term, say of two years, irrespective of when he retires. An ad hoc policy give rise to uncertainty. A transparent and well-defined one would bolster cadre morale. The appointment of the senior-most IFS officer, Shashank, as the new foreign secretary is a welcome move. He is suave, competent and well-meaning, with years of experience in key desks. All this will stand him in good stead while shaping India’s foreign policy in the next eight months.
