This past week India witnessed the worst terrorist attack on it's soil. There has been lot of news coverage by all the channels and the press on how it happened and what should be done now. In between all this the Home Minister took "moral" responsibility and resigned. Now that is what caught my attention. The Minister takes "moral" responsibility and resigns and that's it. No hue and cry after that. Well this is not the first time a minster has taken "moral" responsibility and resigned. And that makes me think, is that good or bad. And secondly is that enough.
Let me get to the first point, about good or bad. When a catastrophe of this magnitude happens, it will require a lot of shake up. However is it right to do that change in the middle of a catastrophe. Agreed that the Minister was not efficient and he needs to go. However the hours just around the incident are also the time that requires a lot of quick decision and there needs to be someone at the helm to direct those decisions. But time and again our leaders choose to duck their head, leave the responsibility and run for cover. You can't hide from your responsibilities and run like that. If this is a little extrapolated, if a national calamity occurs, will the Prime Minister too resign and run. Then who is going to run the country. I believe in all situations, the government and the people should wait to see all the evidences to come forth them and then decide who should go and more importantly who should take over. This practice of leaving the post without finding a replacement could prove detrimental to our country.
Now the second part - "moral responsibility". The Minister had the resources and the power to make decisions and do things in a proactive way to protect our country. Well he has failed miserably. No doubt about it. But is this just a "moral" position? Is this just a "moral" responsibility? Was he doing our country a favor by being a Home Minister? Doesn't the the job comes with responsibilities? And doesn't failing in his responsibilities have consequences? Due to his ignorance or lack of decision making power hundreds of lives were lost? Doesn't that make it a criminal offence? When an employee of a company commits suicide due to work pressure, the employer is charged with criminal offence. When an employee of a company is murdered, the employer of the company is charged with criminal neglect. So why shouldn't the Minister not charged with criminal offence for failing in his duties and resulting in the loss of hundred of lives?
Now the second part - "moral responsibility". The Minister had the resources and the power to make decisions and do things in a proactive way to protect our country. Well he has failed miserably. No doubt about it. But is this just a "moral" position? Is this just a "moral" responsibility? Was he doing our country a favor by being a Home Minister? Doesn't the the job comes with responsibilities? And doesn't failing in his responsibilities have consequences? Due to his ignorance or lack of decision making power hundreds of lives were lost? Doesn't that make it a criminal offence? When an employee of a company commits suicide due to work pressure, the employer is charged with criminal offence. When an employee of a company is murdered, the employer of the company is charged with criminal neglect. So why shouldn't the Minister not charged with criminal offence for failing in his duties and resulting in the loss of hundred of lives?
