I
am no legal eagle. I am not even an acquaintance of Mr. Bangaru Laxman (I have never
met him). I have nothing against Tehelka. I have not been induced, monetarily
or otherwise, by anyone to post this brief note.
I
am raising a question out of sheer curiosity.
I
discerned a para-parallel (illusory parallel) between what happened to Bangaru
Laxman in the current instance and to what happened to politically influential people
in the US in the ABSCAM case, late 1970s and early ‘80s. I am taking reference
to an article in Boston College Law
Review by Mr. Patric M. Verrone [1].
Was
Laxman entrapped? Did Tehelka supply “an otherwise innocent individual with a
disposition to commit a crime”? Did Tehelka have evidence for it to conclude
that Laxman was individually (vis-à-vis merely as member of the tribe of politicians)
“predisposed” to committing such a crime? If yes, was evidence for coming to such
conclusions adduced in the current case? Does Indian law demand such “proofs”? In
the ABSCAM case a government agency was the agent
provocateur, though the courts did not see it as such, but the referred
article does. What was Tehelka’s motivation in this case?
Beyond
the above possibly pseudo-parallel with ABSCAM, I do have a few more questions.
What exactly was the loss to the exchequer? Has any rupee value been put to the
consequences of what Laxman did? If none, how does this become a criminal case?
“The
purpose of ABSCAM investigation was the identification and eradication of
corruption in government.” [1]. Even if this motivation can be attributed to
Tehelka, there remains the question of it being a private effort. How does the
responsibility-rights balance tilt vis-à-vis Tehelka?
“As
long as modern entrapment and due process law remain as they are, random
selection [for] bribery investigations which employ unsuspecting middlemen and
videotape evidence will remain fundamentally inequitable.” [1].
Last
question: Is this observation valid in Laxman’s case?
Sure,
it is distinctly possible that all the questions I have raised above are idiotic.
But, that is one of my prerogatives, as an individual. I am well within my
rights to raise any question, however stupid it may be.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
2 comments:
The question you're raising is valid, no doubt. I remember when India TV did a similar sting on a Bollywood actor by presenting a pretty girl to him, I thought the method was unethical. It was playing on a very natural human weakness. At best, what India TV proved was the actor's weakness for sex.
Your argument is valid that way. Tehelka proved Laxman's greed for money.
But there's another side too. Doesn't the episode prove that Laxman is corrupt? If he was not, he could have straightaway refused the offer of the bribe...
While the actor is less culpable because his passion for women need have nothing to do with the public (though the casting couch has something to do with the public), Laxman is much more culpable because as a leader of the people he ought to possess greater integrity.
Sorry, Matheikal, I do not accept your differentiation between Laxman and the other. One cannot deliberately induce someone to commit a crime and then use that to brand him a criminal. This is precsiely why I gave the URL that argues in a similar way. Did Tehelka have proof of prior instances of such venality on the part of Laxman.
It is all very well to say that the leaders should not only be not corrupt but they also should be seen to be beyond corruptible. But, that won't fly here.
The episode proves no more than that he is CORRUPTIBLE. The target was arbitrary. That way, even I am corruptible.
RE
Post a Comment