The political atmosphere in India has been so charged in recent years that any number of people have felt free to make any kind of charge against anyone. Indeed, these rumour mongers and retailers of malicious gossip have enjoyed considerable credibility even among reasonably well educated people. This propensity to believe the worst about those in authority assumed unmanageable proportions during the emergency when an unduly harsh censorship treated even the most respected and responsible newspapers as if they were yellow rags. The end of the emergency was followed by a deluge of all manner of charges, some of them doubtless justified as the Shah Commission’s reports have demonstrated. This was understandable. For the suppression of honest journalism inevitably promotes rumours on the one hand and excesses on the other, the first because the people are psychologically prepared to believe the worst about those in authority and the second because the latter do not fear exposure. But unfortunately and somewhat surprisingly, the atmosphere remains pretty foul and reputations continue to be ruined over 18 months after the end of the emergency. On the face of it, factional infighting in the ruling Janata party is largely to blame for this state of affairs. In reality the malaise may be much deeper. Perhaps what may be called race memory is at work. With the exception of brief periods, the Indian people have been ruled so badly, unjustly and harshly throughout the ages that they are unable to believe that things have changed considerably and that a fairly large number of men in top positions have a concept of public morality and service to guide them, even if they are unable to live up to the ideals which have come to be commonly accepted. There is, of course, no dearth of men out for a quick kill in the country’s political life. But even they dare not flaunt their unconcern for norms as most rulers and their courtiers could in the 18th and 19th century.
The revival of this unhappy race memory in respect of men in authority is possibly one of the worst results of the emergency. Even today it is not possible to discuss issues, whether relating to it or not, calmly, dispassionately and reasonably objectively. That alone makes the Reddy commission’s third and final report notable. The commission has exonerated Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister’s elder son, of being in any way involved in the Boeing affair in 1976 and held that the then defence minister, Mr. Bansi Lal, and the then chairman of the Indian Airlines, Mr. A.H. Mehta, tried to involve him. This, however, raises another question. Why did Mr. Bansi Lal and Mr. Mehta behave in that far from worthy manner? Apparently because they believed that they would be able to push through the purchases of the aircraft in question quickly if they could make it appear that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was interested in and approved of their proposals. And they must have had good reasons to so believe. It is easy and to some extent fair to blame Mrs. Gandhi for having fostered such an atmosphere. But have things changed all that much under the new dispensation and is it possible to hold Mr. Morarji Desai equally responsible for the sycophancy that continues to prevail in the corridors of power and outside?