The Hindu : Reprieve and resignation

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Sep 20, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Reprieve and resignation

IT IS NOT fully clear yet why the special court in Rae Bareli discharged the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, in the Ayodhya case when it framed charges against the Human Resource Development Minister, Murli Manohar Joshi, and six other Sangh Parivar heavyweights. The Central Bureau of Investigation's charge-sheet against the eight leaders centred on a meeting they held in Ayodhya on the morning of December 6 1992, a few hours before the Babri Masjid was demolished. The eight were accused of making inflammatory speeches, which the CBI felt attracted sections in the Indian Penal Code that relate to wanton provocation, promotion of enmity, public mischief and unlawful assembly. In Mr. Advani's case, the Rae Bareli court seems to have been persuaded by the divergence in statements by witnesses to conclude that the evidence against the Deputy Prime Minister was diluted. It remains to be examined why the charges against Mr. Advani alone remained at the level of "suspicion" while those levelled against the seven others were strong enough to make out a prime facie case.

The answer to this question will become apparent when the Rae Bareli court's 130-page order is closely scrutinised. Meanwhile, it is important to remember that in the context of the shameful destruction of the Babri mosque, this case — even if it may cost Mr. Joshi his ministerial post — is the lesser or more limited one. The main case against the eight leaders is that they were part of a criminal conspiracy to demolish the mosque for which charges were framed as early as 1997. It is only because of a technical or procedural flaw that the conspiracy case against Mr. Advani, Mr. Joshi and others got derailed; a CBI appeal which seeks to rope the eight Sangh Parivar leaders back into the conspiracy case is pending with the Allahabad High Court. In other words, in the context of the larger legal background of the Babri Masjid/Ayodhya cases, Mr. Advani's `reprieve' in the Rae Bareli special court is not as noteworthy or momentous as some Sangh Parivar loyalists would like us to believe. Similarly, it is difficult to see how Mr. Joshi's resignation can be touted as an act based on principle. After all, Mr. Joshi had no compunctions about assuming ministerial office in 1998 although charges were framed against him in the Babri Masjid demolition case a year earlier.

Mr. Joshi's declaration that he would resign if not discharged came one day before the Rae Bareli court was due to frame charges on the basis of the CBI's charge-sheet. If it was totally unexpected, it is because the Bharatiya Janata Party's position all along has been that the Ayodhya cases were "politically motivated" and that those accused need not resign from their ministerial posts merely because they are charge-sheeted. Given this, Mr. Joshi's sudden declaration was viewed as a ploy to capture the high moral ground and to force Mr. Advani, who Mr. Joshi regards as his main rival within the BJP, to do likewise. If this is true, then the HRD Minister's stratagem did not work with the Rae Bareli court arriving at the unexpected decision to discharge Mr. Advani but frame charges against him and the other accused. The BJP spokesman has claimed that there was no need for Mr. Joshi to have resigned, but the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, should not be influenced by such counsel, which tacitly implies that the resignation should not be accepted. Allowing those with criminal charges against them to occupy ministerial office would undermine the very principles on which the edifice of parliamentary democracy is built. He must let Mr. Joshi go.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Reprieve and resignation

A developing relationship