Hey Sukh Ram!

How must we look at Sukh Ram’s conviction by a special court in a corruption case relating to his tenure as a union minister between 1993 and 1996? On the face of it, there is a sense of relief at nemesis finally catching up with him. The Corrupt Politician is as well-known today for his ability to run ahead of the law as he is for his proven venality. Sukh Ram’s own case has had such a long innings in the courts. After the CBI registered an FIR in the telecom scam in 1996, he was let off by the Delhi High Court on the grounds that there was no prima facie evidence against him, till the Supreme Court intervened to direct a special judge to hear the case. Meanwhile, Sukh Ram had floated a new party after being expelled from the Congress, which did well at the polls, going on to become part of the ruling BJP-led alliance in Himachal Pradesh. Yes, it’s good to see the law finally catch up with him.

But, over the years, Sukh Ram’s case hasn’t just been about the hide-and- seek between the corrupt politician and the law. The celebration of his conviction now cannot, therefore, silence those other questions that have trailed his career post-1996. Questions that have to do with his political rehabilitation after his public disgrace in 1996 when CBI raids on his houses in Delhi and Mandi unearthed currency notes in crores from his home. With those images of notes spilling in wanton abandon splashed across newspaper pages, Sukh Ram morphed into a metaphor for corruption in public life. Yet, not long after that, Sukh Ram sought vindication from the ‘people’s court’ and, what is more, got it. Not long after that, the BJP, which had raised the loudest slogans against him after the telecom scam, holding Parliament to ransom for a record period, did political business with him. His MLAs shored up the Dhumal government in Himachal Pradesh; in return he got a place under the BJP umbrella which enabled his son to enter the Rajya Sabha from the state.

The questions, then, are these: why is it that the verdict of the ‘people’s court’, more often than not, runs counter to that given by the court of law? What gives political parties the confidence that they will get away with the most opportunistic somersaults even as they spout a moral language? Sukh Ram’s case cannot be closed unless we find answers to these questions.