The resignation of communications and information technology minister A. Raja of the DMK places before us circumstances in which a coalition partner in the ruling dispensation at the Centre can be made to withdraw a particular minister if the Prime Minister is keen to secure the resignation of the minister in question.

Simultaneously, the Raja episode shows that if the party — in this case the Congress — around which the coalition revolves is determined to oust a minister of a party other than its own, the doors are not closed on such a possibility. Since coalition governments at the Centre came to be a regular feature of our system, this is the first time that a constituent unit of the ruling coalition has been successfully pressured by the principal party of the governing enterprise. It is because such an outcome once appeared impossible that in his day Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had justified any compromise thrust on the main party of the ruling group, coining the expression “coalition dharma” in the process.
It is clear that the Congress was helped by the fact that the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu crucially depends on it for numbers in the state Assembly. Thus, the DMK was not in a position to threaten the collapse of the UPA-II government, even if it had so desired. It seems, however, that in the present context the more important consideration lending the Congress decisive leverage in negotiations with the DMK is that the party has sacrificed its chief minister in Maharashtra on the Adarsh apartments issue, a prominent member of its parliamentary party in the Commonwealth Games investigation, and a high-profile Union minister from its own ranks on an issue concerning IPL cricket franchising although no one believed the minister had pocketed money that wasn’t his. These events appear to flow from the apparent eagerness of the party leadership (Sonia Gandhi) and the government leadership (Dr Manmohan Singh) to steer clear of any public perception that the UPA-II dispensation can be obliged by circumstances to go soft on financial scandals. This second consideration is more germane in the present instance because even if the Congress holds a deciding hand in the Tamil Nadu legislature, DMK chief M. Karunanidhi could, in the final analysis, countenance the thought of a mid-term poll in his state if push came to shove.
Undoubtedly there was immense pressure on the Congress to  jettison Mr Raja. The year-long buzz against his handling of the 2G spectrum case intensified with the Opposition jamming the work of Parliament following negative observations of the Supreme Court (in a PIL being heard) and the CAG. But let us be clear that none of this establishes guilt, as the DMK has rightly noted even after it agreed for Mr Raja to be ejected from the Union Council of Ministers. Besides, even if Mr Raja was criminally minded, the staggering sums being tossed around by his opponents can only be in the category of a post-facto revelation. At the time that the 2G spectrum was being allotted, it was impossible to determine what the 3G spectrum would later fetch under an altogether different scheme of allotment. Only a proper investigation will reveal what really went on. But the principle of accountability, especially when questions are raised, is a valid one. Respecting this, Mr Raja should have quit much earlier instead of being pushed and pushed. The Opposition should now stop barracking Parliament. The CAG report will be examined by the powerful Public Accounts Committee of Parliament headed by Dr Murli Manohar Joshi of the BJP. A probe by a joint parliamentary committee, which Opposition parties demand, is likely to yield little, as the exertions of similar committees in India and the UK amply show.