Every nation is remembered not only for its economic progress or military strength, but also for the values that guide its public life. After Independence, India adopted the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy and with it a noble tradition of ministerial accountability. The principle was simple: while civil servants ran the administration, the minister in charge accepted the ultimate responsibility for both its achievements and its failures. Public office was regarded not as a privilege to enjoy, but as a trust to honour.

For the first few decades after Independence, this principle lent Indian democracy a distinct moral strength. The generation that had led the freedom movement believed that the credibility of institutions depended as much on ethical conduct as on constitutional authority. Even in Jammu & Kashmir, despite deep political differences with New Delhi, many people admired the personal integrity, simplicity and public conduct of several national leaders. Political disagreements existed, but respect for character often transcended them.That culture, however, did not remain unchanged. Looking back over nearly eight decades of independent India, one can clearly trace a gradual transformation in the understanding of ministerial accountability.

The finest embodiment of that ideal was Lal Bahadur Shastri.In September 1956, while serving as Railway Minister, Shastri offered to resign after the Mahbubnagar railway accident. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru declined the offer, convinced that Shastri could not be held personally responsible for an operational failure. But just two months later, another devastating railway accident occurred at Ariyalur in Tamil Nadu, claiming more than 140 lives. Shastri once again tendered his resignation, this time insisting that it be accepted.There was no allegation of corruption against him. No commission had found him negligent. Yet Shastri believed that such a tragedy, occurring under his charge, imposed a moral obligation upon him to step down. Nehru accepted the resignation while making it abundantly clear that his faith in Shastri’s honesty and competence remained unshaken.

That episode became one of the defining moments of Indian parliamentary democracy. Shastri’s resignation was not an admission of guilt; it was an affirmation of responsibility. It conveyed a powerful message that authority and accountability were........

© Greater Kashmir