If the latter succeeds in extricating itself from the votes-for-cash scandal, it will be largely because of the BJP’s missteps. While the truthfulness of a lower level functionary of the Congress displaying chests full of cash to an envoy of an equivalent status will be difficult to prove, the fact of the BJP conducting a “sting” operation to trap the bribe-givers and takers cannot but show the party in a poor light.

The reason is that a party cannot act like a peeping tom. A media house can do so since it is a part of its job to ascertain the truth by hook or by crook. A former president of the BJP, Bangaru Laxman, was secretly filmed by the Tehelka magazine accepting wads of currency notes. The access to Deep Throat secured by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein was a similar clandestine operation directed against President Nixon. But a political party’s activities have to be aboveboard. In any event, it is not expected to join hands with a television channel to eavesdrop on a rival party.

The BJP’s woes will multiply if the police inquiries into the activities of those involved in the sting operation gather pace, especially if they name senior leaders. The first round of investigations carried out by a parliamentary committee did not place much credence on the hangers-on of the party who were interviewed. One of them has since left the BJP. However, these are not the only problems faced by the BJP. Even more damaging is the disclosure that Arun Jaitley told an American diplomat that the lowering of India-Pakistan tension had led to Hindutva losing its “resonance”.

At the same time, Jaitley felt that another terror attack on parliament could change the situation. Needless to say, it is outrageous for a party to depend on terrorism to boost its prospects. In keeping with this display of crass cynicism was the information provided by the WikiLeaks that the BJP had reassured the US that its opposition to the nuclear deal was mere “posturing” for the sake of domestic compulsion.

Where the confidential cables merely convey what the embassy officials have gathered from their conversations with politicians and bureaucrats, there is little chance of misinterpretation. But where the diplomats venture into making personal or political assessments, there is a possibility of erroneous predictions. For instance, the observation that Prakash Karat “will be a powerful figure on the Indian political scene for years to come and could play an increasingly important role in the formation of future Indian governments” is obviously based on a favourable impression formed by the Charge d’Affaires and a political officer of the US in the early years of UPA-I.

But as the Left’s decline began with the defeat of the no-confidence motion against the Manmohan Singh government in July, 2008, it became evident that the role envisaged for Karat by the Americans was unlikely to be realized. Yet, the misjudgment can be explained. Since the Americans have rarely interacted with communists in a democratic country, their initial ideological aversion can turn into a muted admiration, especially when facing a self-assured and articulate person like Karat.

In this respect, the American attitude is not unlike what the WikiLeaks have said about Sonia Gandhi’s attitude towards the communists. According to the communiqués published by the WikiLeaks, the Congress president found the “high-caste and well-educated” comrades more congenial and trustworthy than the “rustic” politicians of the Hindi belt. However, probably because of Sonia’s initial opposition to the nuclear deal, when she said that the Left had a point in resisting its passage, the Americans have been quite uncomplimentary in their assessment of her, saying that she never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

For all the furore that they create, the WikiLeaks are somewhat like a gust of fresh air which removes the cobwebs of evasions and untruths which are a part of politics. Yet, they reveal very little which is startlingly new. It is no secret, for instance, that the BJP exploits religion for political purposes or that the Congress is not a model of virtuous conduct. Manmohan Singh’s pro-American stance, exemplified by the removal from the petroleum ministry of Mani Shankar Aiyar, who calls himself a non-card carrying communist, is also obvious. So is Washington’s wish to see as the finance minister the pro-reforms Montek Singh Ahluwalia, who was called a “World Bank man” by Jyoti Basu.

Soon after the October revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks had promised to reveal the secret treaties signed by the governments of the time. Nothing much came of it, but the WikiLeaks of today are performing a similar job. (IPA Service)