Suspicious times

Few institutions can escape the general mud-flinging that marks electoral campaigns. As the country gets into campaign mode again, the mutual rancour between political parties and individuals is going to get more manifest. It is only to be expected then that every move made by parties in power will be watched with suspicion. The institution that has already come under a cloud of controversy is the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI, despite the protestations of its director, P.C. Sharma, and the disclaimers of political leaders like the Union law minister.

This is only to be expected given the flurry of important investigations that are currently crowding the political space. Not only did the Ayodhya demolition get renewed currency with the filing of chargesheets against senior leaders of the government and sangh parivar, the court action that followed led to a fresh round of recrimination, with the exoneration of L.K. Advani leading some to maintain that the CBI had been biased. Then there was the Taj Heritage Corridor issue that resulted in the agency having to inquire into the worldly fortunes of the voluble Mayawati. Again, its timing gave rise to the charge of political vendetta. It appeared that the BSP leader was targeted the moment she lost power as UP chief minister. As if all this was not enough, l8217;affaire Ajit Jogi blew up over what many regarded as a case that could have been handled without bringing an agency like the CBI into the picture. Since this happened just as Chhattisgarh was preparing for its elections, once again a patina of suspicion attached itself to the issue. What has lent an ugly colour to the proceedings are the charges and counter-charges. While an enraged Mayawati has even brought the prime minister8217;s family into her range of fire, Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Karnataka Chief Minister S.M. Krishna have rushed to the defence of their beleaguered colleague, Ajit Jogi, and have charged the NDA government of deliberately targeting him for political purposes.

The CBI responded by saying that it was only following its mandate and court orders. The point, however, is whether its defence carries conviction given its history of succumbing to political influence, regardless of the party in power. Some of the stalwarts of the present government were, in fact, victims of such interventions by Congress governments of the past. The Supreme Court judgement on the hawala case in 1997 had raised serious questions about the kind of control that needed to be exercised over the CBI but subsequent attempts at reform did not meet with success. Given this background, it behoves the agency to conducts itself professionally, in keeping with its well-publicised motto of 8220;industry, impartiality and integrity8221;. This is required all the more in suspicious times like these. The CBI would do well to remember that it, finally, is accountable only to the Indian public.