Commentary/ Saisuresh Sivaswamy

By refusing to resign, Laloo committed rape of the law; now, he has compounded it with sodomy as well

Two recent events, one positive and the other negative, represent the problem the Indian republic has been, and will be, facing in its tentative march towards stability. That these events took place at a time when the nation is commemorating the 50th anniversary of Independence is perhaps a coincidence. Nevertheless, one should ponder the direction we are taking.

The first and positive event was the smooth Presidential election. As we do not perceive our head of state as little more than a figurehead, there was nothing of the friction that one associates with the selection of the head of government.

However, at a time when the polity is marching through uncharted woods, when the expediency of coalitions may well become the order of the day, it is the man who sits in Rashtrapati Bhavan, or his representatives in various Raj Bhavans across the country, who decides who will govern.

Considering this, the Presidency has obviously evolved from being a mere rubber-stamp to the king-maker. True, it may not be something that our Constitution-framers would have welcomed. In fact, a President with powers of his own may not be welcome to many in this country, but it is a reality that Indians will have to learn to live with.

There is, of course, a choice. And that is to select to the highest office men and women with impeccable credentials, who will not turn in any direction but the right one, never mind the strength of the winds buffeting him or her. Thankfully, despite the Hadean depth in moral standards that politics has been plumbing of late, the republic seems to be in no short supply of men and women with moral timbre.

There is a dark lining to this silver cloud when one considers that most of the incumbents of Rashtrapati Bhavan have belonged to an era closely associated with the nationalist movement, when men of towering personality and far-reaching vision stalked the land, it is not surprising that Presidents have been men of stature.

But what does one do when we have to turn to the next generation, from which spring leaders like Laloo Prasad Yadav?

The goings-on in Bihar, which is the second development that I mentioned, should be a revelation of the things we will see in the days to come, when the Bihar mantra reverberates across the country. As a rule, politicians are not keen on taking leave from power for a day. If elsewhere, the culpable ones have been forced out it is for the simple reason they lacked Laloo Yadav's brazenness. Today he has cocked a snook at the entire establishment; and there is not a whit that any of us can do about it barring beat our breasts. Yadav has exposed the impotency of the republic as no other politician before him has, and he won't be the last.

On one hand, we have a prime minister who does not have the power to decide who can and who cannot belong to his Union council. On the other, we have a chief minister who had to be literally bombed out of his chair but who, before quitting, installs his spouse there -- a spouse who may have had experience in presiding over his kitchen, but who knows nothing about governing an ungovernable state like Bihar.

The Central Bureau of Intelligence's case for arresting Laloo Yadav in the fodder scam was that he could utilise the power of his office to destroy the evidence against him. By agreeing to his arrest, the court had lent its assent to this argument. Now, by placing his wife in the chair vacated by him, Yadav would like us to believe that she will do no such thing, that she will be an impartial witness to the legal battle against him.

If at first, by refusing to resign even when the prime minister made it known that Yadav should go if only to uphold the high standards in political life, Yadav had committed rape of the law. Now, by anointing his wife as chief minister after him, he has compounded his crime with sodomy as well.

And the central government is still debating the merits of Article 356 itself, not the merits of wielding it in Bihar!

If our statute-makers had not felt the need for arming the Centre with the power to dismiss democratically elected state governments, they would not have put it there in the first place. What they had warned about was not using it, but misusing it. And, in free India, incidents of its abuse abound. I am sure, if B R Ambedkar were alive today, he would cite Bihar as the best example of the state that needs Article 356.

But alas! The malaise of Laloo Yadav will not end with merely using this Constitutional provision and sending the Rashtriya Janata Dal government packing. For, given the backwardness of the state, what would one do if, in the election held later, he bounces back with a clear majority -- and that, even before the court can pronounce him guilty or innocent?

Obviously, Laloo's is not a test-case. Neither the founders of the republic nor their successors who make for today's establishment, have ever wrestled with a problem like him. But unless we debate and decide this particular case, the course of the republic will be a particularly volatile one.

The nation may survive Laloo Yadav and his antics -- it has survived worst -- but the republic may not.

Tell us what you think of this column