A regular ritual to deflect criticism

By K. K. Katyal

NEW DELHI, DEC. 5. It is a pity that a gruesome human tragedy - the loss of 43 lives in the railway accident in Punjab two days ago - should have brought out the worst in the present-day political culture instead of a manifestation of a new high, with increased emphasis on devotion to duty. What else is the meaning of the impulsive action of the Railway Minister, Ms. Mamata Banerjee, in resigning from the post to own ``moral responsibility'' - and of agreeing to stay in office after its rejection by the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee? One would not have taken a cynical view of this and, instead, would have hailed the ``right step,'' had her past record been different and had the tribe of Railway Ministers not turned resignations into rituals to deflect sharply critical attention.

From all accounts, the latest tragedy was man-made, avoidable - in the same way, perhaps, as a similar accident at a spot, not very far away, nearly two years ago, killing 220 people. One would have liked to see evidence of new urgency and seriousness about railway safety, a promise of introspection, of examination whether the priorities set both at the political and official levels were right. The occasion called for a country- wide alert to the railway administration on gaps in safety measures. A judicial probe was in order but, given the fate of similar inquiries in the past, it did not quite inspire confidence among the people.

The late Lal Bahadur Shastri, the Railway Minister in the Nehru Cabinet, was the first to resign on moral grounds. His action was not seen as a farce - it did not turn out that way. Of late, however, the resignations - of Mr. Nitish Kumar for instance, last year - were notable for political rather than moral overtones. In the case of Ms. Banerjee, this was her second resignation in two months. In the first case, her action, as was known, was unrelated to her charge and, because of that, it was seen as having been prompted by narrow, very narrow, partisan considerations.

Her ultimatum to the Prime Minister - to roll back the hike in the prices of petroleum products or else - was intended to help her party, the Trinamool Congress, to establish its credentials as the protector of the poor and the middle- classes. Given the compulsions of the coalition politics, she had to be mollified. That the roll back, even though slight, was totally devoid of economic sense did not seem to matter. The episode demonstrated that her main priority had no relation to her responsibility as a Central Minister and that her major concern was to improve the standing of her party, with an eye on the Assembly elections in West Bengal next year. There was nothing wrong in her resolve to work for the end of the Left Front rule in West Bengal but could not the political fight be waged without disregarding proprieties that go along with the role of a Central Minister? When offered a Cabinet slot by Mr. Vajpayee, she had shown keenness on the Railway portfolio - a charge which, she calculated, would give her visibility in her home-State. Her subsequent conduct drew some harsh comments - that she conducted herself as the Railway Minister for West Bengal rather than of the country as a whole. The unfavourable reception to her resignation was, therefore, not surprising.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : STF and commandos
Next     : The resignation that never was