The Union government has been commendably quick in ordering the Karnataka administration to initiate follow-up action on the Grover Commission’s interim report on charges of corruption and nepotism against the former State Chief Minister, Mr. Devraj Urs, and some of his colleagues. But though the commission has found that four of the six allegations it has looked into are well founded, the law being what it is, the Centre’s move may not in effect add up to much. The local police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (if the State authorities consider it necessary to bring it into the picture) will doubtless register the cases and conduct detailed inquiries so that the necessary prosecutions can be launched in law courts in course of lime. But before this process moves much further Karnataka will have held an election to the state legislature in which Mr. Devraj Urs and his colleagues with unsavoury reputation will be candidates. And who can be sure that they will not win, even secure a majority in the legislature and thus be in a position to form the government once again? What if they are back into office in a little over a month’s time? The Grover Commission can continue its work because it owes its appointment to the Union government. But unless the Centre is willing again to dismiss the state government which will not be easy, it will be labouring in vain.
The case of Mr. Urs is not unique. Others duly indicted by inquiry commissions earlier on equally if not more serious charges have held office subsequently and some of them do so now under the Janata party. Indeed, if large sections of the electorate are not repelled, as they clearly are not, by established charges of corruption, this is unavoidable. Also, this problem is not peculiar to India. In the United States, for instance, not to speak of a mere Congressman who won an election after being convicted by a court on criminal charges, a well-known crook – a man, to quote Mr. Truman, who told lies from both sides of his mouth – was elected President by the biggest margin in its history only a little over six years ago. The previous and current disclosures regarding Congressmen and Senators being bribed by foreign governments and lobbies underline the same point that corruption charges are not a particularly serious liability except perhaps in a handful of countries like Britain. Authoritarian regimes are if anything more corrupt and venal. But there must be some way to improve the tone of public life even if the electorate is not vigilant enough and enlightened enough to do the job by rejecting candidates with poor reputation for probity. At least the possibility of enacting a law debarring men and women indicted by inquiry commissions or convicted on criminal charges by law courts for a specific period deserves to be looked into. The case of Mr. Urs underscores the urgency of this problem.