Mrs Gandhi must be rather pessimistic about the prospects in 1976 if she is indeed thinking in terms of an election to the Lok Sabha early in 1975. For, such a move can be justified only on the ground that the politico-economic situation is more likely to deteriorate than improve later next year.
The Congress retains its massive majority in Parliament. The party remains reasonably united despite the occasional right-left debate and the recent controversy over Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan and his activities. Above all, Mrs. Gandhi’s own hold on the organisation remains unchallenged. Thus the kind of considerations which normally lead to premature elections do not apply in this case.
On the contrary, a snap election can reduce the Congress Party’s strength in the Lok Sabha, provoke bitter wrangles as in 1967 and affect adversely to some extent the Prime Minister’s own position. History seldom repeats itself. But it is not irrelevant to recall that the electoral reverse in 1967 paved the way for the split in 1969.
Thus Mrs. Gandhi can be justified in seeking a fresh mandate in early 1975 only if she concludes that the challenge posed by Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan cannot be confined to Bihar, that it is likely to spread to some other parts of the country, specially eastern UP, and that it will acquire sufficient momentum to throw up an altogether new political force in North India and to compel opposition parties other than the CPI to come together under his leadership. Implicit in such an assessment will be an acknowledgement that time is on the side of Mr. Narayan and that the government cannot bring about an improvement in the economy and thereby reverse the process which has led to the decline in the Congress Party’s popularity.
DELIMITATION
But whatever Mrs. Gandhi’s calculations and compulsions, she must not circumvent the constitutional provision which requires a fresh delimitation of constituencies after every census. The last one took place in 1971.
Technically she will perhaps not be violating the Constitution if she submits her cabinet’s resignation to the President, leaving him no choice but to order fresh elections even before the constituencies are delimited afresh. But that will go against the spirit of the Constitution and encourage rather than discourage the present tendency among aggrieved groups to seek redress for their grievances outside the constitutional process.
The pressure on the system and the government’s difficulties are doubtless the products of prolonged economic stagnation and the resulting shortages, the rise in prices and the growth of unemployment, specially among the educated youth. But there can be no question that the ruling party has suffered in popular esteem, and that respect for the institutional framework has declined because the impression has spread that the Congress leadership does not care much for constitutional proprieties. It must not therefore do anything, particularly at this critical juncture in the nation’s political life, which confirms this impression.
It is easy enough for the Congress and CPI leaders to denounce Mr. Narayan and his supporters as neo-fascists out to undermine the democratic system. But the correctness or otherwise of these charges apart, the cavalier manner in which the majority party has treated the Constitution is at least partly responsible for the appeal of the Sarvodaya leader and his movement among a section of the intelligentsia. That is indeed why many High Court and Supreme Court lawyers, who by no means subscribe to his utopian concepts of partyless democracy and people’s power, have come to sympathise with his efforts in their search for a corrective against the government’s disregard for constitutional proprieties.
AMENDMENTS
The radicals in the Congress leadership may not realise even today that the series of constitutional amendments they have pushed through Parliament and supersession of judges of the Supreme Court and some High Courts in disregard of the established procedure, on the one hand, and the movement for dissolution first of the Gujarat legislature and now for that in Bihar, on the other, are two faces of the same coin. Disrespect for elected bodies is bound to grow in periods of stress and strain if those in authority themselves are not scrupulous in their use of power and firm in adherence to the requirements of the Constitution.
Democracy is clearly not coterminous with majority rule. Indeed, the very foundations of democratic institutions cannot be said to have been properly laid in any country unless the constitution-makers have had the wisdom to make inalienable certain rights of the individual and the minorities, religious, cultural and political – a point which Mr NA Palkhiwala has made with his usual vigour in his book Our Constitution, Defaced And Defiled (Macmillan) – and these cannot survive unless the majority party is prepared to continue to respect these rights.
In the context of the Indian situation, the Congress leadership has been particularly ill-advised to base its claim to meddle with the fundamental law of the land on the strength of its majority in Parliament because this has at no time been backed by the proven support of the majority of the electorate. Thus in moral, though not in technical terms, the Congress Party’s right to rule has itself been dependent on its ability to produce what can be called a broad national consensus.
Mr. Nehru was very sensitive to this fact of the country’s political life and it was this awareness that explains his extraordinary efforts to produce a national consensus on major policy issues, his daily attendance in Parliament when it was in session and his caution in pursuit of his objectives. This personal factor accounted to no small extent for the fairly successful working of democratic institutions in the country during his prime ministership. It follows that Mrs Gandhi too must work for a national consensus if she is to avoid a further aggravation of the challenge facing these institutions.
The problems she faces are doubtless far more complicated than those which confronted Mr Nehru. It was also much easier to pursue politics of consensus in his day than it is now, partly because the general atmosphere then was one of hope in the future. But whatever the difficulties, the alternative to politics of consensus is eclipse of genuine democracy even if its trappings survive. And it will be ridiculous for anyone to argue that the task can be best tackled after the polls. The process has to begin right now.
It is, of course, easier to talk of consensus than to produce one. But certain points are self-evident. It cannot, for instance, be argued that in foreign policy the emphasis on anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism is as relevant as it was in the ‘fifties or even early sixties. Not only have almost all colonies gained independence but the Arabs and other oil-producing nations have acquired such gigantic financial resources that no former imperialist powder dare cross their path. Similarly, the old bias against the United States cannot be justified after its withdrawal from Viet Nam, its gradual accommodation with China and its growing detente with the Soviet Union.
In terms of domestic policy, it should be reasonably clear that a steady expansion of the public sector is not likely to pay Mrs. Gandhi the kind of dividends Mr. Nehru reaped from it. Apart from its performance in purely economic terms which cannot be said to have been satisfactory, it has in no way reduced the disparities in income or wealth or given a sense of belonging to its employees. If anything industrial relations in public sector undertakings have been much worse than in the private sector.
PRAGMATISM
It does not follow that popular esteem for the private sector has increased as that for the public sector has declined. On the contrary, the image of the Indian business community has seldom been more tarnished. It is held guilty of all economic offences in the book and if it is not the object of public wrath, it is because the standing of most politicians and bureaucrats has sunk even lower.
Thus neither the Nehru framework nor its opposite can be the basis of a new consensus. The emphasis now has to be on pragmatism in both foreign and economic policies and cleaner public life and administration. The government appears to be seized of the first aspect of the problem but seems determined to evade the second. That is possibly one reason why it is thinking in terms of a snap election. But that cannot be a substitute for breaking the link between corrupt politicians and dishonest businessmen, curbing the hold of black money in politics, and restoring faith in the integrity of public servants in respect of elections.
The Times of India, 25 December 1975