The duo and the trio

The Bharatiya Janata Party could have claimed the high moral ground if it had summarily asked Harin Pathak, a Central minister, and Ashok Bhatt, a Gujarat minister, to resign when they were chargesheeted in a murder case. Instead, the party leadership made a vain bid to defend their continuance in the government even as the prime minister sought advice from Law Minister Arun Jaitley. Even so, the belated decision upholds the principle that a chargesheeted person must not continue in the government till he is exonerated of the charge. The argument advanced earlier by the party leadership that the case against the duo was 15 years old and it would not stand judicial scrutiny was untenable. In fact, these are matters to be gone into entirely by the court. Needless to say, their resignation does not mean that they are guilty. When a few years ago L.K. Advani resigned from the Lok Sabha and declared that he would not contest an election till he was exonerated of the hawala charge, it was hailed as a perfectpolitical step in consonance with the principle that Rama8217;s wife should be above suspicion. It should be said to Advani8217;s credit that he stood by his word and contested an election only when the court found there was no evidence to prove the CBI charge that he had taken money from the Jain brothers.

Having set such exacting standards of public life, it was quite surprising for leaders like Jana Krishnamurthy to defend the indefensible. Ostensibly, it is the fear of the past catching up with the BJP that forced the party to take such a stand. What agitates the party the most is the fear of the Ayodhya case in which three Central ministers 8212; Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati 8212; stand accused of taking part in the demolition of the mosque. A valid distinction has been made between the two cases; while the CBI had chargesheeted the ministers, the court has not yet taken cognizance of it unlike in the Gujarat murder case. Small wonder that BJP chief Bangaru Laxman has said that the party would decide about the trio8217;s continuance if and when they are quot;chargesheetedquot;. Those like Arun Jaitley who see the Ayodhya case differently, devolving no responsibility on the ministers to quit even if they are quot;chargesheetedquot;, compromise the principle inherent in their own advice to Pathak and Bhatt toresign.

It is an irony that the BJP has to pay a price for agitations which it no longer approves of. For instance, much water has flowed down the Sabarmati since the precursors of the BJP took part in the anti-reservation agitation in Gujarat 15 years ago. Given the party8217;s unequivocal espousal of the cause of reservation and recognition of the need to consolidate its caste vote banks, it would be ashamed of admitting that its leaders like Bhatt and Pathak had taken part in an anti-reservation agitation. Similarly, the party rues the day some of its rank and file took part in the wanton flouting of the law at Ayodhya. After all, no less a person than Advani had quot;regrettedquot; the pulling down of the mosque. But unfortunately for the ruling party, the law does not take cognizance of such belated regrets in its bid to catch up with the accused.