Reportedly, the Congress' core group, which met for several hours on Sunday evening, decided that since the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was still considering whether Mr Bansal was involved in his nephew's alleged wrongdoing, it would be premature to ask for his resignation. As for Mr Kumar, the Supreme Court has now seen the affidavit submitted by the CBI on the government's modifications to the agency's status report on the investigation into coal block allocations. Since the CBI's affidavit, on the one hand, clearly implicates Mr Kumar as making changes to the report but, on the other, says that the changes were not substantive and did not alter the direction of the investigation, it seems there is no clear link to wrongdoing there yet, either. There is a powerful argument to be made that if India develops a political culture in which Cabinet ministers have to resign the moment there are suggestions of wrongdoing that are as far from fructifying as these are at this point, then running an effective government may become even more difficult. The traditional view that ministers should only go if there are charges framed by a magistrate has much to recommend it.
That being said, it is worth noting that something does indeed smell off to the public in both cases, whatever the direct linkages may eventually found to be. It may not be possible to link Mr Bansal at this point to his nephew's behaviour; but the fact remains that Mr Bansal's family has apparently profited during his ministry, and that his nephew has been accused of selling posts that lie in the gift of his uncle's ministry - and it must be added to the circumstantial evidence that the person in question actually got the high office he allegedly paid for. If Mr Bansal does not disown his nephew publicly, and immediately makes transparent the decision-making process by which this member of the Railway Board was chosen, then the Congress must realise the taint will stay unless it orders Mr Bansal to quit. In any case, there have long been suspicions that this appointment process has been corrupted, and so there is a larger problem that needs to be addressed, whether Mr Bansal goes or stays. Similarly, if Mr Kumar holds on to his post now, even though the CBI's affidavit suggests he altered the scope of its investigation in certain ways, but is forced to go after the Supreme Court makes adverse comments about his actions - or, worse from the Congress' point of view, takes it up a notch by going after the Prime Minister's Office - then the political fallout for the ruling party will be even more dire. The decision to back the troubled ministers, thus, is typical of a government that does not know when to hold, and when to fold.