Crisis Of Governance

Basically, there are three ways in which Mr Yadav can be made to go: moral suasion, conviction in a court of law and a defeat on the floor of the House. Moral suasion has not worked because Mr Yadav alleges that the investigation against him is motivated. He has also said that he has very little faith in the police because the police are used for settling political scores. So he says nothing short of a conviction by a court will induce him to quit. Had the CBIs record in such matters been exemplary, no one would have believed Mr Yadav. But so low is its reputation and so many times has it lent itself to such charges that even if it is right this time, Mr Yadavs shameless stand still carries a modicum of credibility. There lies his advantage.

 

That leaves the other two methods of getting Mr Yadav to go, conviction or a defeat in a confidence motion. Getting a conviction could be a lengthy affair, even with a special court. Besides, what is the guarantee that the CBI will prepare its case faultlessly? As has been repeatedly pointed out, its record in this aspect, too, is abysmal. That leaves the confidence-motion route which is necessarily an uncertain one. No one is willing to risk it. If Mr Yadav wins the vote, Bihar would be in the unenviable position of having endorsed a chief minister who is being tried on criminal charges. Does this mean that nothing can be done to remove a chief minister from a public post after a chargesheet has been filed against him but before he has been convicted? It would appear so, which reveals an extraordinary lacunae in the system. But then who would have believed that things will come to such a pass? But though it is not comparable, it is worth recalling that in June 1975, Indira Gandhi had also refused to quit, that too after a high court had actually convicted her of election malpractice. Propriety was a casualty then; it is a casualty now.