The law took its course

Imagination will have to be stretched to its limits to believe that justice has been done in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha JMM bribery case. Yes, the law has taken its course, as promised repeatedly by Narasimha Rao himself when he was the prime minister. As the special court that heard the case found, it was a straight case. The bank transactions proved that a bribe was indeed given by the government functionaries and it was accepted by the MPs belonging to the JMM. So it did not matter whether the approver and former MP, Shailendra Mahto, had changed his stance a couple of times or a dozen times. The judge found Rao and his minister Buta Singh guilty as it was with the former8217;s blessing and the latter8217;s deep involvement that bribery was employed to help the government face a no-confidence motion in 1993. While the quantum of punishment to be given to them will be decided after hearing the guilty, nobody will shed tears for them for they stand condemned at the public bar. Even now it is almost unbelievablethat persons holding such high positions could stoop so low to prop up their own government. But the pity is that a whole lot of guilty people have escaped on questionable legal grounds.

As the law stands, it does not distinguish between the giver and the receiver in cases of bribery. But in this instance, many of the accused escaped punishment because of an interpretation of the immunity MPs enjoy vis-a-vis the votes they cast in the House. Thus, while it stands proved that the JMM MPs had indeed received huge bribes, their voting in the House could not be challenged on grounds of motive. Little does this take into account the fact that the immunity the Constitution had granted to the MPs was to help them discharge their responsibilities without fear or favour and not to facilitate receiving of bribes. Among those who have escaped in this manner are some who have been moving heaven and earth to get the chief ministerial chair in the soon-to-be-formed Jharkhand state. Equally important, the conduct of some members who abstained from the crucial voting that day escaped scrutiny, although it is acknowledged that an abstention can sometimes be as valuable as a vote. While it has not even beenexamined whether there was a quid pro quo in their abstentions, it may not be irrelevant to recall that some of their relations were given tangible benefits like cooking gas agencies soon afterward.

What went against Rao is that the transactions were in the form of quantifiable money and through bank transactions, unlike some others who bribe by offering ministerships and other lucrative posts that enable the beneficiaries to make even more money than they would have got through one-time down payments. Seen in this context, the judgement will only alert the political class to the need to be more circumspect in their nefarious dealings. How clumsy Rao and his parliamentary strategists were is borne out also by the fact that even without the JMM votes, the government could have won the trial of strength in the House. But, then, it is total unconcern for public morality that Rao and company displayed and it is this that has brought them closer to the jail. A stint there will serve them well.