Thackeray8217;s tricks News Archive News

In a parliamentary system, defined by collective responsibility, individual ministers resign from the council either on moral grounds, or ...

July 21, 2000 12:00 AM IST

3 min read

In a parliamentary system, defined by collective responsibility, individual ministers resign from the council either on moral grounds, or to accept responsibility for a personal failure. Wednesday8217;s resignations by three Shiv Sena ministers 8212; Suresh Prabhu, Manohar Joshi, and Balasaheb Vikhe Patil 8212; was on neither count. It was purely meant to create a brouhaha, in some ways similar to the recent threat of agitation by the Shiv Sainiks, in case their supremo Bal Thackeray was arrested. The entire gimmick was at the behest of Thackeray against whom the Vilasrao Deshmukh-led Maharashtra government has sanctioned prosecution. The resignation drama was intended as a loyalty demonstration, in order to influence the Prime Minister to pressurise the Maharashtra government not to go ahead with the arrest of Thackeray. Although the Sena is a recalcitrant partner of the NDA government at the Centre, the language of the resignation was carefully worded: we resign from the council of ministers but do not abandon theNDA. The Prime Minister was obviously left with no choice other than rejecting the resignation proposal.

At the heart of the matter lies the important question of whether Thackeray will be arrested, and should he be arrested? Even arguing from a purely legal position of let the rule of law take its course, there appears a problem. Thackeray is after all accused of penning inflammatory pieces in the Sena mouthpiece, Saamna, in January 1993. Since cases, under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion etc, enjoy a clear time bar of three years, technically Thackeray cannot be, and, perhaps should not be, arrested. After all, the Union Law Minister Ram Jethmalani categorically made this point after his meeting with the Prime Minister. It is precisely here that the rub lies. Successive state governments in Maharashtra, whether of the Shiv Sena- BJP coalition or even the Congress, simply sat tight over the long-pending police petition for sanction to prosecute Thackeray. Not merely that, the Shiv Sena-BJP government even shelved theSrikrishna Commission report which in its findings clearly indicted Thackeray for the Mumbai riots of 1993.

Although the present Maharashtra government has claimed to take a fresh look at the Srikrishna Commission report, the delay in doing so, as well as in sanctioning the prosecution of Thackeray in other cases, raise doubts as to the sincerity of respective governments in implementing the rule of law. Since law is morality concretised, equity and justice are its two basic ingredients. Consistency and impartiality while implementing it are of utmost importance in order for the law to appear fair. Unfortunately, in today8217;s partisan politics the rule of law has, indeed, become a political football between rival state governments in Maharashtra, and in the country in general. It is being used more for political witch-hunting than for any legitimate purpose. This has led to large-scale erosion in the sanctity and legitimacy of the law. If the rule of law dictates that Thackeray should be arrested, so be it. No threats of violence, nor any resignation drama should prevent his arrest. But the law in this case shouldnot be selective and used by political rivals to score brownie points.

Tags: