CLEOFATO ALMEIDA COUTINHO
Seventy years ago in September 1956, a railway accident at Mahbubnagar in AP re sulted in the death of 112 passengers. The then Railway Minister, Lal Ba hadur Shastri resigned but was persuaded by Pandit Nehru to with draw his resignation. A few months later, another accident at Ari yalur killed 144 people. Nobody held Shastri re sponsible. In fact, MPs did not want him to go but Shastri wrote to the PM ‘It will be good for me and the government as a whole if I quietly quit the office I hold.’ A constitutional con vention has developed in the UK and India where cabinet ministers are solely responsible for policies, conduct and administrative failure. In 1954, Thomas Dugdale, Minister of Agriculture in the UK quit despite an inquiry suggesting that all mistakes were without the minister’s knowledge and due to deliberate deceit by civil servants. In 1982, Lord Carrington resigned over the failure to prevent the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. In 2002, the Secretary for Education and Skills, Estelle Morris, quit over ‘A level mark ings and delays in get ting teachers for the new school year. The Conservatives charged her with loss of confidence from parents and pupils in her ability to run schools. In fact, in her letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, she claimed: “All this has meant that with some of the recent situations I have been involved in, I have not felt I have been as effective as I should be or as effective as you need me to be.” Can we ever expect such ac countability and trans parency from our minis ters? Such standards not only enhance democracy but also enhance the country’s prestige. Lal Bahadur Shastri set a golden standard of ac countability, followed by T.T. Krishnamachari over the Mundra affair in 1958.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
A reluctant V.K. Kr ishna Menon was eased out under pressure from Congress MPs as Defence Minister over our pre paredness in the Sino-In dia war in 1962. Nitish Kumar owned up the re sponsibility for the Gais al train accident in 1999, and Shivraj Patil quit after the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008. The present-day ministers find it difficult to follow the Shastri benchmark. Seventy years after the Mahbubnagar accident, we remind ourselves of Lal Bahadur Shastri’s historical gesture and the reminder of ethical obligation in public life. But times were different then; societal standards were different. Shastri was a disciple of Gan dhi who died in 1966 without a house or land, and with a car loan to be cleared by his wife. The monumental calamity of the NEET Exam paper leakage and cancellation of the examination led to the deaths of eleven NEET aspirants by sui cide.
The central govern ment stood firmly behind the Education Minister despite 152 paper leaks in the last ten years. It took a savage crackdown on the Gen-Z movement resulting in anti-govern ment public sentiment not seen in the last few years, to ease Dharmen dra Pradhan out of the central cabinet. When demonetisation brought about an eco nomic disaster in 2016, nobody took the blame. In fact, the Prime Min ister secured a greater majority in 2019. Sixty children died at Baba Raghav Das Hospital in Gorakhpur and the alle gation was that the oxy gen supply was cut over unpaid bills. The Health Minister did not resign. The UP CM returned with bigger numbers in the next elections. That has only emboldened the ruling party to be lieve that accountability is an election-time af fair. There were cholera deaths due to poor hy giene at the Cutbona jet ty in Goa. Large amounts of fish died at Mala Lake in Panjim due to sewage pollution. Land scams and job scams are ga lore. Not a whisper of ac countability.
The DGP of police and a local police officer allegedly pres sured the cops to allow the demolition of a Goan family house in Assagao. The authorities looked the other way as though nothing happened. When major disasters happen, the minister in charge may not have person al culpability. For those responsible for gov ernance, the acknowl edgement of duty and failure of responsibility demands that account ability must begin from the top. The resignation of the person responsi ble would prevent the abuse of power and en sure the government serves the people with a high level of credibility and integrity. Resigna tion is a great remedy for ministerial accountabili ty and a principle to con trol the unruly horse of arbitrary powers. Often, and particularly in a po larised polity like ours, the demand for resig nation leads to political battles.
Democracy works on the principle that the people are supreme and play a great role in gov ernance. People exercise their power through the elected and ministers are responsible for their actions. Nobody is infal lible; ministers are ul timately human beings. Mistakes are bound to happen but must be met with an apology accept ed by Parliament. How ever when Parliament is captive in the hands of the majority, movements and street protests must act as checks and balanc es. In this land of elec tions, a belief is being built that government accountability can only be tested at five-yearly electoral cycles and de mocracy is all about elec tions.
It is with that belief that Rajnath Singh said amidst the Lalit Modi controversy in 2015, “No, no… ministers don’t resign over this, brother, this is an NDA govern ment not a UPA govern ment.” To take such a view in a Westminster model of democracy is sheer arrogance of pow er which can breed only in an atmosphere of fear. Accountability cannot be sidelined into an exclu sive election-time mat ter; Governance cannot be made the train that never arrives! (The writer is a des ignated Sr. Advocate, political thinker who taught Constitutional laws for three decades)
