EDITORIAL : THE HINDU, INDIA

Everything is Maya

A clean chit? Hardly. It is important to see the Supreme Court’s quashing of the disproportionate assets (DA) case against the former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mayawati, for what it is — a decision grounded entirely on legal technicalities. It is far from being a declaration of innocence as Ms Mayawati’s overzealous supporters would like us to believe. As the first line of the judgment states, “the only question” under consideration was whether the FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Ms Mayawati for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to her income was “beyond the scope of directions” passed by the Supreme Court itself. In holding that it was, the Court has made a distinction between the Taj Heritage Corridor Project case — in which it had directed the CBI to register an FIR relating to the Mayawati government’s preposterous plan to construct commercial buildings on a two-km stretch behind the Taj Mahal without appropriate clearances — and a “roving enquiry” into her financial assets. Having maintained that “anything beyond the Taj Corridor matter was not the subject-matter of reference before the Taj Corridor Bench,” it was only a short step to reach the conclusion that the CBI had exceeded its jurisdiction in the case.

The CBI may be faulted for misunderstanding the Court’s orders and investigating Ms Mayawati’s assets from 1995 even though the Taj Corridor project was conceived only in 2002. But the manner in which the assets of Ms Mayawati and her relatives have mushroomed cannot but raise a suspicious eyebrow. The CBI had claimed that her assets increased from Rs. one crore in 2003 to Rs. 50 crore in 2007. Its affidavit in the Supreme Court talked of 96 plots, houses and orchards acquired by her and her close relatives between 1998 and 2003. The affidavit filed along with Ms Mayawati’s nomination for the Rajya Sabha a few months ago contains an estimation of her own wealth: Rs. 111.64 crore. If her defence in the now quashed DA case rang a familiar bell, it is because politicians have used it before: sharp increases in wealth are explained as the accretion of small contributions made by legions of followers out of “love and affection.” Acceptance of income tax returns is held out as proof that the income is genuine. In an environment in which clear financial trails are hard to unearth, disproportionate assets cases — where the onus of proof is shifted on the accused — are a more effective instrument against politicians and bureaucrats suspected of corruption. Given that the chargesheet in the DA case against Ms Mayawati was only being readied, there was hardly anything concrete against her to begin with. Sadly, with the quashing of the FIR, everything is maya.

Saudi games with women

Saudi Arabia’s announcement that it would allow women who qualify to compete in the 2012 Olympic Games may give the impression that the conservative kingdom, which has a brazenly medieval attitude towards its female citizens, has finally seen the light. No such thing. The country was under pressure from the International Olympics Committee, which itself was feeling the heat from international human rights organisations for not coming down hard enough on the country for its gender discrimination. The Olympic Charter describes discrimination against women in sport as “incompatible” with its mission. The IOC did nothing about the wealthy kingdom’s discriminatory ways all these years even though it barred Taliban-ruled Afghanistan from the 2000 games for not sending a women’s team. This year, there were strong calls for similar treatment to Saudi Arabia. Had the country not complied, at the very least, it would have stood out as the only significant outlier among 205 participating nations: the two other countries that have never sent women to the Olympics, Qatar and Brunei, have already nominated their female participants. The Saudi decision allows both it and the IOC to look good without much changing on the ground, and it should not come as a surprise if even now, the Saudi Olympic contingent does not include women. The country has restrictions that keep women away from sport. Girls who want to take up games have no access to material or venues, and rigorously observed gender segregation ensures it remains that way. Given these circumstances, there is virtually no woman who makes the Olympic cut. One equestrian hopeful did not qualify because of an injury to her horse.

Last year, as the Arab Spring swept through the region, King Abdullah quickly made some modest concessions, including permitting women to contest and vote in the distant 2015 municipal elections. Saudi Arabia is the only country where women are not allowed to drive, but this limited extension of franchise was seen as evidence of a new reformist spirit in the monarchy. The true test of Riyadh’s commitment to the IOC lies not in this year’s games, but whether it is willing to loosen up enough to prepare a women’s contingent for the 2016 Olympics. At the moment, this seems somewhat far-fetched; it is telling that women who play sport underground now fear there will be a greater scrutiny of their activities by the powerful religious establishment. There are a few liberal-minded Saudi royals but the monarchy derives its power and legitimacy from the religious orthodoxy. Sadly, that’s not about to change.