So, at last, Abhishek Manu Singhvi was obliged to resign as Congress spokesperson and chairperson of Parliaments Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice. The resignation came on the very eve of the resumption of the
post- recess session of the Budget session of Parliament. The scandal of the CD with him at its centre was in the public domain for more than a fortnight, though. Why he was allowed to stay as an MP is still not clear. After all, if his conduct was so egregiously improper as to warrant his resignation from the above- mentioned positions, it cannot be that the responsibilities of an MP are any the less onerous. Singhvi featured in a CD depicting him in a compromising position with a woman lawyer in his handkerchief- sized chamber in the Delhi High Court. After the CD surfaced in the legal and media circles earlier this month, he had cleverly secured a most questionable order from a Delhi High Court judge. The judge had been rather kind to him. Even then the injunction was against a couple of persons named in the petition. However, Singhvi succeeded in bamboozling the entire media by claiming that there was a blanket ban on any mention about the impugned CD. Meanwhile, he seemed to have enlisted the services of the Delhi Police to alt39alt39alt39alt39persuadealt39 his former driver to strike a compromise. It was Singhvis claim that the former driver had morphed the CD since he bore a grudge against him. Of course, anyone who has seen the contents of the CD – and there are by now several thousand who have – are left with not an iota of doubt about its authenticity.
Assuming that the CD was fake, as Singhvi would like us to believe, in that case wasnalt39t it easy for him to fix his former driver by simply complaining to the police. The same police which showed an extraordinary zeal in apprehending the driver and then making him submit to a deal offered by Singhvi could well have proceeded against the offending driver for seeking to blackmail and extort money out of his former employer. Singhvis actions before and after the settlement with the said driver lent credence to the contents of the CD which showed him in flagrante delicto with the said woman lawyer in his High Court chamber. But being a smart lawyer, Singhvi has tried to play a victim of blackmail, a claim which universally elicited snickers of disbelief. His claim to high- mindedness in voluntarily quitting from the two posts sounded hollow. If he really wanted to save the Congress Party further embarrassment he ought to have quit as an MP as well. After all, not long ago the same parliament had forfeited the membership of thirteen of its members for accepting small sums of money, some as little as Rs five thousand, for filing written questions. Here the charge against Singhvi is that he was dangling the carrot of elevation to the Delhi High Court bench to the woman lawyer in exchange for sexual favours.
Meanwhile, the apologists of the Congress Party ought not to make an artificial distinction between the private and public morals of politicians. Such a luxury is not available to those who deign to lead the country. Ordinary citizens whose actions do not normally impinge on the public affairs might get away with the most permissive behavior but political leaders are expected to give a better account of themselves. Politicians are supposed to be role s. Americans normally disapprove of even a minor breach of the moral code by their politicians, even though they themselves are known to live quite an amoral life. After all, the one who leads has to follow the straight and narrow.
As the lead spokesperson of the Congress Party, Singhvi was expected to behave better.
Sexual relations between two consenting but unmarried adults break no moral or legal code.
But when it is an extra- martial affair on both sides, it is hard to avoid the taint of adultery and a breach of faith. Even if the wronged spouses are most forgiving, the fact that Singhvi is a leading light of the ruling Congress Par
