“My comments on Saturday were not directed towards drought-affected people and I had no intentions to hurt anybody's sentiments... I hope my comments will not affect drought relief measures which will continue vigorously... Also, it was never my intention to hurt anybody's sentiments... It is true that I should have spoken responsibly. I apologise to all."
 
That’s Ajit Pawar, the deputy chief minister of Maharashtra, on Monday, two days after his callous remarks on the drought and power situation in the state caused an uproar.

On Saturday, according to reports in different media outlets, including PTI, Pawar, a nephew of union agriculture minister and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) honcho Sharad Pawar, said, “What can we do if there is no water in the dams of Maharashtra? Should we urinate?”

The first part of Pawar’s “apology” says the comments were “not directed towards drought-affected people”. So who were they directed toward? People enjoying ample water supply? But, then, why and how would they be interested in the water levels of the dams? Either way, it matters little since the suggestion to urinate would have made it deplorable even if the comment was directed toward non-drought-affected people — either in Maharashtra or outside.

The second part of the statement — “I had no intentions to hurt anybody's sentiments” — is weirder. So what was Pawar’s intention in suggesting that he could, and should, urinate in order to raise the water levels? Was it a joke? Or a matter-of-fact statement of purpose with para-scientific implications? If he meant he urinates quite a lot, is that a cause of concern or apprehension for the people — both in drought-prone areas and outside, and in Maharashtra and outside. Either way, it matters little since the suggestion to urinate would make it deplorable even if the comment was made not to hurt public sentiment.

The third part — “I hope my comments will not affect drought relief measures which will continue vigorously” is even more bizarre. So how exactly does he want the relief measures to continue? Will he, or won’t he (urinate, that is)? How does Pawar, who held the state’s irrigation portfolio for nearly a decade, propose to address the issue? Neither his intended-or-otherwise suggestion — to urinate — nor his apology to both houses of the state assembly holds an answer to that.

The fourth part of the “apology” — “It is true that I should have spoken responsibly” is the only one that makes any sense. And in it Pawar, intentionally or otherwise, hits the nail on its head for the whole political class. Responsibility is a noun that is fast dying out from the lexicon of most Indian politicians. So when Abhijit Mukherjee, a Congress MP from Jangipur in West Bengal but more famous as president Pranab’s son, tags women protesting after the December 16 gangrape-turned-murder in Delhi as being part of the “dented-painted” brigade or home minister Sushilkumar Shinde says people will forget, over time, the coal block allocation scam like they forgot the Bofors rip-off, one knows exactly what the problem is. Responsibility went for a toss. And in came the casual joke.

But since being a public representative, let alone a minister’s job, entails 24x7 responsibility, maybe people with a bent to make casual jokes — joker, is that the word for such characters? — in public should also go for a toss. And without apology this time.