It will perhaps be unfair to endorse the view expressed by Janata MPs that the motion of no-confidence by the Congress (I) had something to do either with the Shah Commission’s two reports and Mr. Sanjay Gandhi’s arrest or with the party’s victory in the recent by-elections in UP. But it is difficult to think of another explanation which can make the slightest sense. The Janata party has, it is true, been badly divided both at the centre and in the states and its performance has been such as to lose it a great deal of the support it enjoyed, especially in the Hindi-speaking states, last year. But neither of these developments needed to be spotlighted and in any case a no-confidence motion cannot be said to be the best method of drawing attention to them. On the contrary, since the Janata leaders themselves have been doing an excellent job of exposing both the conflicts within their ranks and the government’s failure to tackle the law and order problem and afford adequate protection to the Harijans and the minorities, the Congress (I) could have enjoyed the fun from the sidelines. It could have justified the decision to table the no-confidence resolution so soon after the budget debate which gave its MPs enough opportunity to have their say on major issues of interest to them only if it had suddenly come into possession of such damaging material as would have gravely embarrassed the government. But it has not produced any such material.
The Congress (I) leaders are new to the opposition role. So far only Mrs. Indira Gandhi has demonstrated the capacity to master the necessary techniques, though her forte is either a dramatic gesture like the visit last summer to Belchi village in Bihar, scene of the murder of a number of Harijans, or sweeping criticism of the government at large public meetings. The others are either imitating her, obviously with much less effect, or just floundering. It is, therefore, not particularly surprising either that some of them should have concentrated their attack on Mr. Morarji Desai’s son, Mr. Kanti Desai, and his principal secretary, Mr. V. Shankar, when it should not and indeed could not have been their main objective to embarrass him or that they should have depended solely on reports in some journals which the Prime Minister could easily demolish. Mr. Charan Singh’s letter to Mr. Desai might have provided them some useful ammunition provided they had got hold of a copy. But they had not. As a result they were in no position to press the attack. Indeed, Mr. C.M. Stephen found himself on the defensive on the question of the emergency which he could hardly justify effectively in view of his own earlier decision to dissociate himself from Mrs. Gandhi on this very count. All in all, the ineptness of the Congress (I) in tabling the motion has been matched only by the ineptness of the Congress and the CPI in supporting it.