An Act Of Judgement

Bihar, by its sheer notoriety, may not be the best place in the country to be caught in. Worse, for a man who has ruled the state for some six years as his personal fiefdom. Chief minister Laloo Prasad Yadav, dispensed his own brand of justice, along with his trademark economics, all in the name of the nine million people in Bihar.

How times have changed! Here is a not-so-poor soul hounded by his own party, the opposition and the press for not putting in his papers as chief minister following corruption charges against him in the multi-crore fodder scam. But Yadavs reply has been an unflinching resign, I shall certainly not.

 

It is the issue of public morality that has triggered the demand for Yadavs resignation. But what on earth is public morality? Who defines it? The rule of law is not being questioned by Yadav. Time and again, his refrain has been: Let the court hold me guilty, and I shall quit. But we find ourselves in a judgmental era where the underlying dictum behind the cries for Yadavs resignation is: You are guilty till proven innocent. The point is, Laloo may not be right in his mulish attitude, but he is not wrong either.

Obviously, there are several good reasons behind what can be subjectively branded as Yadavs brash response. One prime reason, besides his innocence, he feels, is the mass following he claims to command in his home state. But the resign Laloo brigade, including his own partymen, ranging from the prime minister, I K Gujral, and the former prime minister, Deve Gowda, to the ever-ambitious union ministers Sharad Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan the latter two with immense vested interests in Bihar would rather have him resign in the name of public morality first, and then put up his defence.

The media, on the other hand, has gunned for Yadav in a stereotyped manner. Yadav, for the media, is the rustic and uncouth Bihari full of megalomania, who lacks the sophistication that urban India is used to. Thus, television cameras, more starkly than the journalistic keyboard, oscillated from the beaten-to-death images of Yadav as either a buffoon or a scheming politician sticking to his chair at any cost.

The bias is distinctly noticeable, when one juxtaposes it with the media favourites like the turncoat politician Subramaniam Swamy or the bureaucrat-turned-politico Mani Shankar Aiyar. Both have hardly any electoral base to talk of. But a kind of sophistication, rarely found in a politician, a command on the English language, and a seemingly forthright view on virtually every subject under the sun gives the duo an edge over the likes of Yadav or Congress president Sitaram Kesri in the brahminical media.

In Yadav, there is a politician who has, against all odds and against a strong combination of the BJP and the Samata Party, got his party re-elected on his own might in a state that is known for changing its demi-god leaders from election to election. Even now , Yadavs message is simple and clear: Throw me to the dogs if found guilty by the courts whether it be of law or of people.

After all, chargesheeting by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can hardly be construed as the final verdict. If the act of resignation that too on the basis of a CBI probe is to show concern for public morality, the political sufferings of BJP president L K Advani or former Delhi chief minister Madan Lal Khurana should be enough to discourage any sensible politician from taking such a rash step. Advani resolved to keep away from elections in the wake of the allegations levelled by the CBI in the hawala scandal in 1995 till his innocence is proved, while Khurana had to step down from his chief ministership of Delhi.

The hawala case, though still being appealed in the Supreme Court by the CBI, got thrown out by the high courts, and the BJP thought it was reason to rejoice. Politically, yes, the party may have gained, but only at the cost of Advani, who has been instrumental in bringing the two MP-party to the present position of the single largest party in Parliament. Advani, in the process of the CBI allegations, lost the 13-day prime ministership to Atal Behari Vajpayee after the last Lok Sabha elections in 1996. Instead, now with the party constitution not allowing him a third term as president, Advani is contemplating retirement from politics. Quite a sad end to an otherwise impressive political career.

Khurana is in no better position either. His recent acquittal does not guarantee his rightful claim on the chief ministership of Delhi. In effect, he is doing no better than cooling his heels, though outside the prison.

All this brings us to the role of the CBI. The investigation agency has an unenviable track record of never leading any case to its final and logical conclusion. Among the recent cases, apart from hawala, there is also the example of the St Kitts case, where former prime minister Narasimha Rao has been exonerated of the charges.

In fact, there is always an air of mystery surrounding the timing of CBIs victims. The hawala and St Kitts cases consumed a prime minister-in-waiting and an ousted prime minister. In Yadavs case, it was just the cannon-fodder the Janata Dal leaders needed to attack a seemingly all-powerful kingpin.

It is finally a vicious circle allegations fly around, and within no time, detractors within the party jump with glee at the fall of the titan even if they themselves would think more than twice to uphold public morality.

The message is clear: the fact that Yadav is sticking to his chair should not be held against him. In the backdrop of the CBIs doubtful credibility and the loss of political years of Advani and Khurana, Yadavs decision of not quitting, till the court of law or the people hold him guilty, cannot be faulted.

A similar scandal broke out in Maharashtra, when a state government clerk in Dhule, through alleged collusion with politicians, officials and contractors, siphoned off huge chunks of money from the Employment Guarantee Scheme. When the case came to light through the media, an inquiry was immediately instituted into the scandal, but the hue and cry subsided with few harsh words against the concerned departments. While a mature government takes quick decisions to hush up scandals, the Yadav government happen to react in a more devil-may-care manner.

Yadavs grave mistake could be either collusion or incompetence. But with the backing of a large part of the Janata Dal legislature party, several party MPs and even some union ministers, if Yadav is adamant in not resigning, it is probably his prerogative.

After all, it is public perception that matters. There were no inquiries or chargesheeting against Sharad Pawar or Jayalalitha, even though there were endless allegations of corruption and nexus with criminals. But when the next round of elections came, the people of their respective states threw both of them out of power along with their parties.

Probably, Laloo Yadav will face the same fate. But his hopes are probably hinging on the example of Kalpnath Rai, who was imprisoned on corruption charges, but still won the elections from his prison cell. Or better still, Karunananidhi, who made way for the Jayalalitha regime because of his own corrupt administration in the early nineties. And now, the electorate brought him and his Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam back with a thumping majority because it perceived Jayalalitha as the goddess of corruption.

That is the very essence of the parliamentary system of democracy and hence, the constitution. So where did this jury, ready with a verdict and the noose, come from, taking precedence over the court and the electorate?

To resign or not to resign is Yadavs prerogative. The fact that he is sticking to his chair should not be held against him. In the

backdrop of the CBIs doubtful credibility and the political loss suffered by Advani and Khurana, Yadavs decision of not quitting, till the court or the people hold him guilty, cannot be faulted.