The balance of political forces in the country is such that it is hard to say whether Mrs Gandhi is playing into the hands of the opposition parties by refusing to resign in the wake of the Allahabad High Court’s judgment or whether the opposition parties are playing into her hands by threatening to paralyse Parliament and taking the issue to the streets.
Irrespective of whether Mrs Gandhi’s decision is her own or whether it has been taken on the advice of Congress leaders like Mr Barooah, it can be argued that she has been guided by the very highest considerations of public interests. She may well have been convinced that her exit at this stage will hurt not only the unity and future prospects of the Congress but also the nation’s security. But such appears to be the mood in the cities today that many people do not take her statements at their face value. In sum, the impression is spreading that she is attached to office above everything else.
Similarly, it will not be unreasonable to argue that by pressing so hard for her immediate resignation, the opposition is increasing her dependence on the CPI and pro-CPI elements within the Congress – the latter have rallied to her because they are wholly dependent on her for their very survival in the party – and provoking her to use the extraordinary powers at her disposal. It is already fairly certain that the monsoon session of Parliament will not be held at least partly because the non-CPI opposition has threatened to paralyse it.
Motives
Whatever view one takes of Mrs. Gandhi’s motives, she has stronger reasons to hold on to office than the opposition has for mounting the campaign for her ouster. Indeed, the opposition’s stand makes sense only on the assumption that it is convinced that the more strident its demand for her exit, the more reluctant she will be to quit. For, there can be little doubt that Mrs Gandhi’s resignation will throw the opposition into utter confusion and seriously undermine whatever hope there is of some kind of unity among its present constituents.
It is unlikely that the Jana Sangh, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya Lok Dal and the Socialist Party would have come together, first in Bihar and then in Gujarat, but for the impetus provided by Mr Jayaprakash Narayan and the movement he is leading. And who can in all conscience question that the dislike, to put it rather mildly, for Mrs Gandhi’s politics greatly influences Mr Narayan’s thinking and actions?
The Sarvodaya leader is opposed to the present economic order with its emphasis on industrialisation and its neglect of the weak, specially in the countryside, and the education system with its accent exclusively on book learning and examinations. But it is open to question whether he would have gone as far as he has if he was not convinced that Mrs Gandhi had made common cause with the CPI, encouraged pro-CPI elements in the Congress and used them to stifle inner party democracy, concentrated too much power in her hands and acquiesced in the growth of political and bureaucratic corruption.
The issue is not that he is justified in taking the view he has of the Prime Minister but that Mrs Gandhi’s resignation is likely to deprive him of his driving passion. Witness his pleas to Mr Jagjivan Ram and Mr Chavan to assert themselves in the interest of “restoring democracy” within the Congress. The inference is unavoidable that he will not be interested in embarrassing either of them.
It also appears that despite his utterances in favour of the RSS and the Jana Sangh, he does not feel quite at home in their company or, for that matter, they in his. Both sides seem to be trying to take advantage of each other. If this is in fact so, it stands to reason that the very exit of Mrs Gandhi will strain this rather unstable relationship.
Objection
This view is open to the objection that Mr Narayan will interpret the Prime Minister’s resignation as a triumph for himself and his movement and that this will strengthen his influence among the people. But essentially he is what may be called a liberal with a strong populist streak. His deepest urge is to see the system reformed and not to disrupt it.
The confusion that Mrs Gandhi’s decision to step down can cause in the ranks of the Congress (O) and the Bharatiya Lok Dal is not at all difficult to imagine. These two parties have hardly any serious policy difference with the Congress and many of their leaders at different levels would be glad to return to this parent organisation if only they can do so on honourable terms.
Thus an objective assessment of the current political scene cannot but lead to the inference that Mrs Gandhi’s continuance in the office of Prime Minister is perhaps even more necessary for the non-CPI opposition than for the Congress. In that sense, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court has come at a very odd time for the opposition. It has diverted its attention from the central task of deciding whether its constituents are to go in for outright merger as favoured by the BLD leaders or for a federal set-up as suggested by the Jana Sangh.
The judgment has inevitably provoked a furious controversy and Mrs Gandhi herself has been fighting back with the grim determination she displayed at the time of the Congress split in 1969. But it would be patently unfair both to her and the Supreme Court for anyone to suggest that she is trying to influence its decision on her appeal. Instead, she is trying to safeguard her political position in the party vis-a-vis the potential contenders for the office of Prime Minister and in the country vis-a- vis the opposition while the Supreme Court takes its time to dispose of the appeal.
These are two parallel and theoretically independent processes. But in a sense there is a connection between them. For instance, while it is possible to imagine that the Allahabad High Court could have unseated Mrs Gandhi in 1972, it is difficult to believe that the demand for her resignation could have been as insistent and vociferous then or that it would have been necessary for her supporters to work actively for mobilising party and public opinion in her favour. Similarly, it is self-evident that Mrs Gandhi would not have survived the Allahabad High Court judgment if her hold on the party and administrative machinery was less secure. It is therefore only natural that she is trying to prove that the judicial pronouncement as it stands does not represent the popular consensus of the moral sense of the community.
In the political sense the issue could have been clinched in Mrs Gandhi’s favour if she had succeeded in leading the Congress to victory in Gujarat and against her if the party had not done as well as it has largely as a result of her efforts. A favourable outcome in Gujarat would have demonstrated her continuing hold on the people and pronouncedly adverse one the loss of her old charisma. The indecisive outcome at once necessitates and makes possible the struggle in which she is now engaged.
It goes without saying that the outcome of the judicial process, both immediate and final, will influence the result of her efforts. But the judicial pronouncement will not by itself settle the larger political question. For, while a favourable judgment by the Supreme Court will not ensure victory in the political field, an adverse one will not seal her fate.
View
On this reckoning it is possible for a dispassionate observer to take the view that so important a political issue like the future of Mrs Gandhi can be settled with finality only in the political arena and not in courts of law. This does not mean that they have no jurisdiction over her or that she is above the law. Indeed, they should do their duty as they see it because it is neither possible nor desirable for them to try to ascertain the popular will. But the opposition should not believe that court proceedings can take the place of active field work.
Be that as it may, to use Malraux’s oft-repeated phrase la politique politicienne (politicians’ politics) is in command in India and there is a danger that vital economic decisions may not be taken. But, unlike in the 1969-71 period, the food situation is now precarious and the rise in oil prices has placed a heavy burden on the country’s foreign exchange resources. This suggests that despite the increased political competition, populism as such may not triumph. Some of Mrs Gandhi’s advisers are thinking and talking in terms of drawing up a so-called radical plan of action. But their success is by no means assured. The Prime Minister herself realises the limitations of populist rhetoric. Perhaps men like Mr C Subramaniam and Mr TA Pai will also be able to take steps to reduce the damage to the economy to some extent. They are more technocrats than politicians and are therefore not deeply involved in the turmoil around them. This may not be a small gain in an otherwise dismal situation.
The Times of India, 18 June 1975