The TenderSURE project of the Karnataka government has always remained in the news—for right reason or wrong, more so from the time that work on the project got under way. Almost all of those were either claims or allegations. But none of those come across as conclusive either way for the people because both claims and allegations were circumstantial. Everyone's point of view had been rightly raised and heard, but somewhere in between, truth had become a collateral damage.
For the people of this city, it was a difficult choice to make: what you would eventually believe would have to depend on whose side you were on. If citizens have to perforce make decisions based on who you want to believe, that augurs ill for a democracy. There was, therefore, an imperative need to take a deep dive into the facts of the case. And that, we could only after we had perused a number of documents that had been procured under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Therein, we found ourselves faced with two choices. First, we could simply drag on the ever-developing TenderSURE story with the traditional "what do you have to say" kind of journalism. But that would have only made things more fuzzy for people; confusing readers is not the way to tell a story. Alternatively, we could simply lay down facts. This could on the other hand start the debate all over again and this one would be based on facts, and not claims and allegations. We opted for the latter choice.
Conflicting voices have been heard and read a number of times in the last two years. Of course, opinions are important in a discourse, but facts are sacred, right? So, why not give only the facts to the readers instead of dumbing them down with conflicting opinions, and let them make their own informed decisions? Besides, all stakeholders now have the even chance to rekindle the debate, this time based on actualities.
Yet, a number of hitherto unknown facts emerged as we pored through the mundane and officious documents, all of which were fleshed out in the three articles that have appeared over the previous three days. The articles, as we gather, have riled many people and ruffled quite a few feathers too. Conversely, many concerned individuals and activists have thanked us and appreciated the TenderSURE series.
We would, however, like to make use of this limited space to respond to a few points that "our" critics have raised either directly, or on social media.
First, that we are taking sides with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). No, please, we don't hold BBMP's brief by any measure. Moreover, such allegations conveniently disregard the 100+ news items that have appeared in this newspaper in the last one month—ones that have dispassionately exposed inefficiencies and irregularities at the palike. Those contentions also cock a snook at our reporters who work tirelessly to bring such stories to readers. Quite a thankless job we people do, isn't it?
Second, we argue that the roads completed so far are actually not good enough. No again. We have not even gone into the quality of the roads; that was never the objective of the series.
Third, if the roads are good as many indeed believe, then bypassing the BBMP was the cool thing to do. Now, that's a dangerous argument to make. We have never for once said or insinuated that the BBMP is supremely efficient or corruption-free. The 100+ stories mentioned earlier bear testimony to that. But, we need to take a stand on this one: if an institution in a democracy does not work, matters should be fixed. Bypassing an urban local body is not the way of doing that; such acts would be both undemocratic and unconstitutional. The last time we had checked, India was still a democracy.
Fourth, that we are running a campaign against TenderSURE. We seriously need to LOL on this one. Now, how is it a campaign by any yardstick? All we have done is publish facts that emanate from official documents, whereas a campaign would have to be a direct call to action. If people feel that they should act on basis of our articles, it is their unfettered right to do so in a democracy. That's not our decision to make.
Very broadly, attributing ulterior motives to us for working on the TenderSURE series is more than a tad unfair. We all have our roles cut out in a democracy, and ours is to work as the messenger. If we have to err, we would like to err on the side of people. And if we have to be stooges (as Biocon CMD Kiran Mazumdar Shaw said in a tweet) at all, we would prefer to be stooges of democracy.
Do keep writing in. We cannot solve civic issues or redress grievances of the people, but we can surely highlight them all. Our mandate is clear on that.
