In calling upon the Janata party’s “trinity” – Mr. Morarji Desai, Mr. Charan Singh and Mr. Jagjivan Ram – to “make up their differences or quit,” Mr. Biju Patnaik has clearly not spoken only for himself. Some other senior ministers feel the same way. He may not have made the statement with their formal consent. But they share his sentiment and have been wanting it to be publicly expressed. Indeed, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee has been threatening to quit the government in case things do not improve which is his way of saying that relations between the party’s three top leaders must improve. Mr. Nanaji Deshmukh’s recent statement that men above 60 should quit government and party positions, too, must be read in the same context despite his subsequent attempts to explain it away. But implicit in all this are two assumptions. First, that the differences between the three men are temperamental, that there is either no conflict of principle and programme between them or that this element is small enough to be quickly adjusted only if the necessary will is there. Secondly, that there will be peace and amity in the Janata party if only the three old men either stop quarrelling or pack up and go home.
Both these assumptions are, however, unwarranted. As for the first, even their worst detractors will not suggest that the clash between Mr. Charan Singh and Mr. Jagjivan Ram is exclusively or even largely the result of personal ambitions and that basic issues are not involved in it. For the two men differ on the most fundamental problem of Indian polity today – the alliance system which can provide the country a measure of stability – Mr. Charan Singh’s accent being on the “backward” castes and Mr. Jagjivan Ram’s on the Harijans, tribals and the minorities, especially the Muslims. It is also no secret that the Defence Minister does not share the Home Minister’s passion for diversion of greater and greater resources to the countryside because he is afraid that this will increase rather than reduce the grave power imbalance in village India to the advantage of the upper peasantry and to the disadvantage of the Harijans. As for the second assumption, can one seriously believe that the differences between the next group of the Janata leaders are less sharp and basic and, therefore, more easily susceptible to compromise? Whether they like to admit it or not, their outlook and constituencies (in terms of the interests they represent) are different. This point may not appear to be particularly important so long as they are not in top positions and other disputes preoccupy their own rank and file and the country. But it is pertinent in the long run. Thus, while it is easy to appreciate Mr. Patnaik’s and his not-so-young colleagues’ anxieties, especially in the context of the Congress (I) successes in the recent UP by-elections, his prescription cannot be taken seriously. The malady is too serious to be treated in so cavalier a manner.