With the booting out of Buta from the Union cabinet, the present crisis appears to have abated though the prospect of fresh trouble is ever a real possibility, considering the fact that the court assembles almost everyday to transact its business. With truckloads of Pandora’s Boxes waiting to be opened by the honourable judges, it may be calm only till the next verdict and there is no knowing who will be on the firing line and who would be wielding the gun. Of course, the ministerial victim, whether he bows out voluntarily or otherwise, would seek to project his exit as a step to uphold ‘propriety in public life’, whatever it means, but it is strange that politicians decide to do so only after being reminded by the court in the form of a chargesheet or an indictment. Busy fellows, one can’t really blame them because they are so engrossed in their opponents’ past that they just forget to keep their own backyards garbage-free.
The BJP, of course, is not any poorer by the exit of this prime post-poll vote catcher, a self confessed head hunter of the immunised members of Parliament, who now claims that the PM used his abilities to muster up a majority as did another PM four years back. But whatever his cries of betrayal there would be no tears in view of the fact that this Buta is no mass seta and was certainly expendable, in the interest of the survival of the coalition. Though there is little sense in his argument that he should have been dumped only as part of a package deal that would have included the heads of a few BJP luminaries also, there is always the possibility of the issue of those ministers coming up in the future, depending on when the court clerk posts those cases. The two PMs in the PMO, Vajpayee and Pramod Mahajan, had better hurry and put their acts together fast or else they run the risk of making a martyr out of the booted Buta.
On hindsight it certainly appears that Vajpayee had been a bit too eager in accepting the resignation of Muthiah. By doing so he has only endangered the stability of his own coalition outfit, for as it seems now, there is no dearth for chargesheeted persons in his cabinet, for whatever reasons. There are quite a few who have corruption charges pending against them and then there are those accused of pulling down a place of worship, besides an eminent lawyer faced with FERA violations and a former CM having an indictment by a commission of inquiry to his credit. With such an assortment of eminents in the cabinet, Vajpayee could have been a little more restrained and a bit more circumspect before walking into the quick sand. The PM should have opted for the safer route of waiting for a conviction by the final court and must not have been carried away by a voluntary gesture, apparently in a haste to project his government as a holy cow. But such moralistic pretensions have been now laid bare by the ruling party’s attempt to get away with double standards. Truly, after UP and HP, no one believes that the BJP would be any different from the other parties when it comes to hardcore politicking for spoils. And add to this, the unbridled tongues of those irascible gentlemen, the PM had indeed prepared for himself an unfailing recipe for self-destruction.
The hue and cry over political vendetta notwithstanding, the various courts of the land are seized of several such issues and they are bound to take a view solely based on the facts before them. The appointments of special courts may be politically motivated, but once on course, it would be difficult to mitigate the damage they may cause to the careers of politicians who have no recourse but to appeal to a higher court. But what happens in the interregnum is what is really of concern for when such men get elected and become even ministers, a negative verdict at that stage really creates a piquant situation, not only for the Prime Ministers but also for the voters. The law of the land is extremely unclear on what really amounts to conviction and at which stage a person loses his legal right to hold public office. In the absence of any sort of consistent convention on this mysterious probity in public life, much is left to the interpretation of the victims and their detractors alike.
There is also this cliched refrain that the law will take its own course, but there is really no clue what that course is. And with the possibility of the course being altered by political machinations, there is no knowing what the destination would be. The chances of the guilty getting away for want of ‘conclusive evidence’ or under some immunity or the other is much the same as the prospect of an innocent person getting framed by a diligent prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence that can pass legal muster. In such a scenario, what you believe depends on who you are and on whose side you are. The clay could be moulded to suit anyone and any situation, provided one has the gall to defy public outcry, the thick skin to bear the pinpricks of media criticism or the tenacity and conviction to withstand a prolonged legal battle to prove one’s innocence. But in politics innocence is a relative term, the relativity defined by the guilty alone.
email the writer at [email protected]