Over the last few days most conversations I have been involved in has veered towards the *Clean Chit* given by Shri Gurumurthy to Gadkari. Almost all comments have partisan, none reasoned. A simple understanding of the situation would require an answer to the following questions:
- Was there a formal Investigation into Gadkari
- If there was an Investigation / enquiry / study into the affairs of Gadkari who authorised it?
- Who did this study and prepared the report?
- Who was the target audience for this report?
- Does this report have legal sanctity?
My answers to the above questions would be:
- There was no formal investigation into Gadkari. That can be done only by the Government.
- There was an informal study into the affairs of Gadkari. It was not formally authorised but Shri Gurumurthy did so partly out of personal interest and partly as interested BJP leaders depended on his domain knowledge. This is my understanding based on his interviews.
- Shri Gurumurthy did this study as an Individual without any statutory authority. He prepared a detailed report and presented it
- The targeted audience was the BJP leaders including LKA, RJ and the BJP Executive Committee.
- My blunt answer on this would be there is no legal sanctity. But we will come back to this after studying say both investigation into Vadra. The reader may extend it to Kurshid, The Young Indian and so on.
The answers to the questions above in case of Vadra with clean chit given by say Haryana CM (it could as well be Moily as Corporate Affairs Minisster) is:
- We are told investigation is done. Also the normal assumption would be an investigation was done.
- Hooda as CM had constituted that investigation.
- The officials involved would have done the investigation and given a report to the CM
- The targeted audience is the General Public. If you feel that is a big jump try CM. But why CM so that he can take action. On whose behalf does he act? Who does he represent? Congress High Command? I would assume the answer is he represents the people.
- The report would carry as much legal authority or sanctity as is necessary under the circumstances.
The difference between the two to me would be this – in the first case, the Government of the day is free to investigate. Gurumuthy’s investigation would be inconsequential to any Government action. They need not even read it or dispute it, leave alone prove it right.
But on the other hand, there are many like me who would like to go to the root of issues before forming their own conclusions. IN this we take our lesson from people like Gurumurthy. We would never be given the opportunity to look into originals like a person of Gurumurthy is given. If this report was done by anybody else (only exception I can think of is Kirit Somaiyaa), it would have have carried very little weight without the back up documents.
When it comes from Gurumurthy, he is putting the weight of more than 40 years of reputation. I am of the opinion that he would never say anything that can be proved factually wrong. That is as far as my opinion on Gadkari is concerned. I was uncomfortable as to where the money came from and this was compounded by the fact that the companies changed their addresses. But this question is answered by Gurumurthy.
Others may not agree with him. But that does not place a responsibility on him to prove to every non believer he is right. That is because he has done this in his private capacity. To the believer it is cast in stone. The non believer can continue his quest.
On the other hand a CM when he makes a statement that investigation is done and everything is clean has a responsibility to prove within reasonable limits as to how he came to that conclusion because of the legal weight his *clean chit*carries. It is the answer to the 5th question that is crucial. The rest leads to it.