Tendering a resignation, even if it is not warranted, requires courage. In politics, as in a good Shakespearean play, an actor’s persona and profile are often shaped by the timing of her entry and/or exit from the stage. An actor who is remembered even when off stage is the true hero. In Indian politics, there is no gesture that is more powerful than that of renunciation. Mahatma Gandhi was immortalised by it. Sonia Gandhi has benefited from it. Consider the examples of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and home minister P Chidambaram. Their political stature was enhanced, and their political career advanced, by their willingness to quit. A resignation tendered on time is a passport to a future political career. But, a resignation offered under duress or too late is a political epitaph. Former external affairs minister Natwar Singh and home minister Shivraj Patil discovered that by delaying their letters of resignation. If they had quit on day one, as at least Mr Singh wanted to but finally did not, they could easily have returned to office, and that too with their heads held high.
None of these lessons has been learnt by the Johnny-come-lately of Indian politics and the enfant terrible of the Congress Party, Mr Shashi Tharoor. If Mr Tharoor had even as much as offered to resign he could have gone to parliament and defended himself with greater elan. Instead, Mr Tharoor first went on television to state categorically that he would not resign. By upping the ante he has earned the wrath of an opposition that has already tasted blood. Even if Mr Tharoor survives this onslaught and his party president and the prime minister choose to let him stay, he would still be a lesser man. He has tried hard to defend himself, but the fact that his party is not leaping to his defence, despite his purported proximity to the party’s First Family, suggests that Mr Tharoor is on a sticky wicket.
Mr Tharoor may well be innocent and he may well be right in whatever he says. Yet, questions of conflict of interest, favouritism and undue interest in matters related to moneymaking by his friends imply that he must not only be innocent but also proven to be so. The government has initiated enquiries, varyingly referred to as ‘enquiry’, ‘search’ and ‘raid’, into the income and tax record of some of those who invested in the Indian Premier League cricket business. The timing of these enquiries suggests political vindictiveness, even if that is not the motivation. Hence, to be completely transparent the government should in fact carry out a thorough probe into IPL auctions and business practices without prejudging anyone’s role and with prejudice towards none.
To enable a transparent enquiry Mr Tharoor should quit so that no government functionary feels any constraint in examining the role of a minister, his aides and friends. If Mr Tharoor’s innocence is established, he can look forward not just to returning to government, but returning with his head held high and to a bright and promising political career. It is in Mr Tharoor’s best interests that he quit now, before he is forced to under political pressure.
