Here is the thing about former telecom minister Kapil Sibal's "zero loss" argument, when he insisted that the 2G spectrum scandal did not actually cause any loss to the government or the country: he had a point. It was a flawed technical argument yet one that had some points going in its favour. Here is the other thing though: In the court of public opinion, a legalistic argument that relies on technicalities and attempts to assert that nothing has gone wrong has a bigger problem than relying on shaky ground – it is dangerously tone deaf. As the Bharatiya Janata Party seeks to firmly back External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, it seems to be veering down the same zero-loss route.
First it is worthwhile remembering what Swaraj herself is accused of here. The LalitGate scandal involved revelations that Swaraj spoke to the British High Commissioner, effectively telling the British government that there was a change of policy and New Delhi had no problem if Indian Premier League founder Lalit Modi was allowed to travel outside the United Kingdom even though he was under investigation in India. Modi has been accused of money laundering and violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, and has been in a self-imposed exile claiming his life in India is under threat.
Ever since Swaraj's indication of this change in policy to the UK, Modi has been able to travel outside the UK, racking up a particularly impressive set of Instagram photos. The alleged impropriety goes a little further because Swaraj's daughter had been Modi's lawyer in travel-related litigation and her husband has been his friend and lawyer for more than two decades. Swaraj, however, has claimed all along that she only offered "humanitarian" help to Modi, allowing him to travel to Portugal to be by his wife who was being treated in a hospital there.
Whataboutery
The government has spent the first two days of the Monsoon session under fire from the Opposition, with many calling for Swaraj's resignation. No useful business has been conducted, a tactic that was perfected by the BJP over the last decade. But in addition to saying she is prepared to make a statement in Parliament, Swaraj also took to twitter to point her guns elsewhere.
Swaraj didn't really get a chance to make good on her promise, since Parliament didn't function long enough for her to speak, but the fact that this was all she had tweeted as of Wednesday was telling. From insisting she had done nothing wrong, the minister has suddenly chosen to point fingers at the Opposition for doing just what she is accused of.
Coal-scam accused Bagrodia, as Swaraj referred to him, has in fact admitted that he himself applied for a passport. Moreover, Swaraj's "threat," as it were, involves an action at just about the same level of impropriety as that alleged against her. Someone "pressed her hard" to give a passport to Bagrodia just as she pressed the UK government hard to give Modi permission to travel. If one is wrong, as Swaraj seems to imply in her tweets, then what makes the other right?
What she's doing is, in fact, something politicians in this country excel at: whataboutery. That's the art of being able to respond to an allegation by saying, "but what about what the <insert opposing political party here> did?" Think of 2002 and 1984, any corruption allegations or this great video by AIB.
Legalese
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley meanwhile, put in his best Kapil Sibal impression, arguing that nothing had gone wrong because the Opposition couldn't pinpoint the legal provision that had been violated. "Nobody has been able to point out which is the law that the External Affairs Minister has breached," Jaitley said in Parliament. "Investigation happens when there is a breach of legal provisions, but when we asked Opposition about this, they had no answer."
Just like zero loss, Jaitley is making a decent argument here. At worst Swaraj is currently accused of impropriety and a conflict of interest that may not be illegal. But, at least based on how LalitGate remained in the news, it is clear that an impression of impropriety has become attached to Swaraj and a minister's responsibility isn't to just not do illegal things but also to steer clear of improper actions.
Jaitley's argument is technically sound, but it is the equivalent of attempting to win a tennis match by telling the umpire how often your opponent made foot faults. You might end up with more points, but you won't have the crowd on your side. His dare is more interesting as an approach particularly if the Congress is unable to come up with a credible answer, but the stench of impropriety clings so closely to Lalit Modi that anyone connected to him is automatically considered suspect.
Swaraj's offensive move could also end up causing an impact if she names a very senior Congress leader, but the likelihood is that she will do damage to that person and the party, without helping her own case in any significant way.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
First it is worthwhile remembering what Swaraj herself is accused of here. The LalitGate scandal involved revelations that Swaraj spoke to the British High Commissioner, effectively telling the British government that there was a change of policy and New Delhi had no problem if Indian Premier League founder Lalit Modi was allowed to travel outside the United Kingdom even though he was under investigation in India. Modi has been accused of money laundering and violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, and has been in a self-imposed exile claiming his life in India is under threat.
Ever since Swaraj's indication of this change in policy to the UK, Modi has been able to travel outside the UK, racking up a particularly impressive set of Instagram photos. The alleged impropriety goes a little further because Swaraj's daughter had been Modi's lawyer in travel-related litigation and her husband has been his friend and lawyer for more than two decades. Swaraj, however, has claimed all along that she only offered "humanitarian" help to Modi, allowing him to travel to Portugal to be by his wife who was being treated in a hospital there.
Whataboutery
The government has spent the first two days of the Monsoon session under fire from the Opposition, with many calling for Swaraj's resignation. No useful business has been conducted, a tactic that was perfected by the BJP over the last decade. But in addition to saying she is prepared to make a statement in Parliament, Swaraj also took to twitter to point her guns elsewhere.
A senior Congress leader was pressing me hard to give diplomatic passport to the Coal Scam accused Santosh Bagrodia.@ANI_news
— Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) July 22, 2015
I will disclose name of the leader on the floor of the House.@imTejasBarot
— Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) July 22, 2015
Swaraj didn't really get a chance to make good on her promise, since Parliament didn't function long enough for her to speak, but the fact that this was all she had tweeted as of Wednesday was telling. From insisting she had done nothing wrong, the minister has suddenly chosen to point fingers at the Opposition for doing just what she is accused of.
Coal-scam accused Bagrodia, as Swaraj referred to him, has in fact admitted that he himself applied for a passport. Moreover, Swaraj's "threat," as it were, involves an action at just about the same level of impropriety as that alleged against her. Someone "pressed her hard" to give a passport to Bagrodia just as she pressed the UK government hard to give Modi permission to travel. If one is wrong, as Swaraj seems to imply in her tweets, then what makes the other right?
What she's doing is, in fact, something politicians in this country excel at: whataboutery. That's the art of being able to respond to an allegation by saying, "but what about what the <insert opposing political party here> did?" Think of 2002 and 1984, any corruption allegations or this great video by AIB.
Legalese
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley meanwhile, put in his best Kapil Sibal impression, arguing that nothing had gone wrong because the Opposition couldn't pinpoint the legal provision that had been violated. "Nobody has been able to point out which is the law that the External Affairs Minister has breached," Jaitley said in Parliament. "Investigation happens when there is a breach of legal provisions, but when we asked Opposition about this, they had no answer."
Just like zero loss, Jaitley is making a decent argument here. At worst Swaraj is currently accused of impropriety and a conflict of interest that may not be illegal. But, at least based on how LalitGate remained in the news, it is clear that an impression of impropriety has become attached to Swaraj and a minister's responsibility isn't to just not do illegal things but also to steer clear of improper actions.
Jaitley's argument is technically sound, but it is the equivalent of attempting to win a tennis match by telling the umpire how often your opponent made foot faults. You might end up with more points, but you won't have the crowd on your side. His dare is more interesting as an approach particularly if the Congress is unable to come up with a credible answer, but the stench of impropriety clings so closely to Lalit Modi that anyone connected to him is automatically considered suspect.
Swaraj's offensive move could also end up causing an impact if she names a very senior Congress leader, but the likelihood is that she will do damage to that person and the party, without helping her own case in any significant way.
