The resignation of Abdul Qayyum Jatoi from the federal Cabinet was not the beginning of a deluge, because it was seen as fulfilling some of the requirements of a Cabinet exit, which the others do not fulfil. The Prime Ministers discretion remained uppermost, and if Jatoi had been included because the PM thought him needed, it was the PM who asked him for his job, thereby establishing that he would decide the expulsions just as he had decided the inductions. Jatoi had been Minister for Defence Production, as the Defence Production Division was hived off from the Defence portfolio, or rather Ministry, to form a separate single-division ministry. The ministry is only separated to accommodate someone in a political government. The portfolio should be quite lucrative, for DPD carries out procurement as well as production, but as civilians are not let into this particular loop, the minister gets left out. Abdul Qayyum may be an old party stalwart, but did not start with the party politically. From Muzaffargarh, his father Nazar Muhammad was elected an MPA on the Pakistan Democratic Party ticket back in 1970, a follower of the late Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan. He then joined the PPP, and continued in it long enough to be elected an MPA on its ticket to the short-lived 1977 Assembly. Elected for the third time in the 1985 partyless polls, he won the re-election in 1988, and in 1990, not only did he win re-election, but got son Abdul Qayyum elected to the National Assembly, on the JUP (Noorani) ticket. Nazar Muhammad himself was on an IJI ticket, having joined the PML alongside most other MPAs. Abdul Qayyum was re-elected on the PML-N ticket in 1993 and 1997. He was elected to a fourth term on a PPP ticket in 2008. Qayyum Jatoi has been a quiet person, who did not come to national attention since becoming a minister, except in a way that traditionally demands resignation: involvement in a scandal. Named in the Islamabad call girl scandal last December, he rode it out. He was inducted as a minister in the second phase of the Cabinet, being inducted in November 2008. Being involved in a sex scandal is a ground for resignation not just because the public holds its representatives to a high standard of morality, but also because there is a fear of leaks as there are doubts thrown on the ability of the person concerned to withstand blackmail. Not only did Jatoi not have to resign, but his portfolio was not changed, even though he was privy to defence matters. Jatoi was made to resign, not because of that scandal, but because of certain remarks he made which were actually attacks on the Chief Justice, as well as the military. The original scandal might explain that outburst, for it made it necessary that he find friends. A strange way of finding friends? Not really, for those sentiments are routinely expressed in PPP circles, including the presidency. Jatoi committed the mistake of a neophyte, that of going public with them. He needed to enter the charmed circle of those ministers the PM could not touch. Jatoi had another threat looming: He was one of those MPs whose graduation degree would come under challenge, and a petition challenging it was filed in court. His remarks against the Supreme Court had been predicated on its taking up the degrees filed, and its view that those who had filed fake degrees were unfit to hold public office. However, the reason that the Prime Minister asked for his resignation was more to do with collective Cabinet responsibility than with anything else. Collective responsibility implies in short, that the acts and sayings of one, are taken as those of all. Further, the minister holds a particular responsibility for his portfolio, reflected in the fact that he handles all its parliamentary business, whether questions or motions, or Standing Committee business. That is the reason for some resignations, when something goes wrong in the department, and the resigning minister wants someone to admit responsibility, but no official is willing to do so. However, nothing had gone wrong with either defence production or acquisition, so Jatoi was not responsible as an individual, but on behalf of the entire Cabinet. The views he expressed might have represented that of the Cabinet as a whole unless disowned the way the PM did. It is only in that sense that collective responsibility could be invoked. However, his responsibility for his views could not be assumed to be solely his. Though the UK has seen Cabinet differences come out in the open, most notably over applying to the Common Market for membership, a similar situation has not developed in Pakistan. At the same time, Jatoi has merely expressed something that the government would not disagree with in principle, but cannot express, because to do so would run the risk of being prosecuted for contempt of court. There have been suggestions that Jatois loss of office was not sufficient punishment, but he should also be prosecuted for contempt. At least Gilani is spared the sight of one of his ministers being so prosecuted. However, the defiance by the Gilani government of the Supreme Court, especially in the NRO case, in particular as far as the prosecution of the cases against the President in the Swiss courts is concerned, is the real reason why Jatoi went as far as he did. The way that Jatoi spoke indicates that he is not alone in the Cabinet in his thinking, and it remains to be seen how far the members of the government do better than Jatoi, who was probably not an exception. The PPP still suffers from the hangover of the 1970s, itself a tail-end, when it thought of itself as a socialist party, and a vanguard party, to which all institutions were supposed to be subordinate. More important for one person, the President carries an immunity, which has now been extended to the acts done before the presidency was assumed. The solution is simple, and will put a stop both to the Cabinets present state of mind, as well as end the present state of disobedience of court orders: Sacrifice the President. Admittedly, he could obtain an acquittal from the Swiss courts, but if he did, then he would have solid evidence against wrongdoing. From that perspective, he should look on the Supreme Court as doing him a favour. Another significant point is the fate of Abdul Qayyum Jatoi. He remains a member, and like Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman - previous resigning ministers - he retains his membership of Parliament. Unlike them, he did not resign on a principle extraneous to himself, and his being in the Cabinet mattered. Such persons usually find their way back into the Cabinet. Though the pressures for his re-induction are as strong as for his original entry, Mr Gilani must resist the temptation, or else he will find the same consequences attending, even if he allows what he thinks a decent interval. Email: maniazi@nation.com.pk