Resignation: It’s no more about moral benchmark in politics

Talk of political redundancies and here’s one: the demand for resignation. When Lal Bahdur Shastri resigned as railway minister in 1956, taking a principled position on a railway accident in Tamil Nadu that claimed 144 lives, he set a high moral benchmark for the political class. Nehru, then prime minister, said he was accepting the resignation because it would set an example in constitutional propriety. Shastri’s sacrifice resulted in a surge of public goodwill for him. When Rashtriya Janata Dal leader and then railways minister Lalu Prasad Yadav was asked by a television interviewer whether he shouldn’t resign taking moral responsibility for an accident in 2005, his response was telling. “People have elected us to take responsibility as ministers, not to run away from it,” he said. In the 50 years between Shastri’s gesture and Lalu’s self-serving argument, the idea of political integrity has undergone sea-change. [caption id=“attachment_56317” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Former Prime Minister VP Singh elevated resignation to a high political art, quitting or offering to quit at the slightest sign of discomfort. Indranil Mukherjee/AFP”]  [/caption] Former Prime Minister VP Singh elevated resignation to a high political art, quitting or offering to quit at the slightest sign of discomfort. He converted what was supposed to be an act of principle to an effective instrument for furthering personal political goals. In the bargain, he gained massive public sympathy as a selfless leader - political capital that would serve him well in the turbulent politics of his times. In the process, he had changed the meaning of the term and taken the moral sheen off it. Resignation from office, as we know it now, is no more a suo motu high act, it is a part of the game of political expediency. It is no more a response to the inner voice of conscience from the individual concerned, it’s a reactive action to external pressures. That’s what makes the recent calls for resignation everywhere across the political spectrum sound so vacuous. The act of leaders calling for the resignation of political rivals at the drop of a hat has turned into a reflexive action. There’s a curious lack of sense of proportion here—any provocation is good enough—and lack of principles. The Congress wanted former Karnataka chief minister B S Yeddyurappa to resign even before Lokayukta Santosh Hegde’s report indicting him and his ministers became public. In a tit-for-tat response, the BJP wants Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit to resign after the damning CAG report on the Commonwealth Games financial irregularities. The BJP has been demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P Chidambaram for their role in the 2G spectrum allocation scam. The NDA routinely sought then railway minister Mamata Bannerjee’s resignation after every railway mishap. There are too many calls for incumbents relinquishing their posts in the air. Some UPA allies were quick to seek the resignation of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar after a land scam surfaced in the state; in Uttar Pradesh, all political rivals have been after the scalp of Mayawati for sometime. There are too many calls for resignation in the air. Of course, principles are not the issue here. The Congress while demanding Yeddyurappa’s resignation was not being the upholder of probity in public life, it wanted the chief minister to go so that the BJP would be badly bruised in the state and lose face at the national level. The BJP wants Dikshit to go because it would destabilise the Congress in a state where it is deeply entrenched and look invincible. Of course, it would be strong political weapon against the Congress at the national level. Integrity, too, is not a big issue for our leaders and parties - it has always been a matter of political convenience. It does not surprise anymore when one corrupt leader seeks the resignation of another corrupt leader citing honesty and integrity. But must resignation be the first response from a minister to allegations against him? No clear answer is possible here. Lalu has a point when he says ministers are entrusted with the responsibility to serve. They cannot just run away. His argument might be from an entirely different perspective, but resignation in a way absolves a minister or any other incumbent of guilt and worse, it gives him the halo of hero. Why allow him that? After all, he is no Lal Bahadur Shastri. He is setting no benchmarks in honesty. In the times of political double standards and skulduggery we must take the resignation calls with a great deal of suspicion.