For once it is not easy to disagree wholly with Mr. Raj Narain. Even if the Janata Central Parliamentary Board has not been deliberately partisan in asking the UP chief minister to seek a vote of confidence from the state legislature party, it has given that impression by ignoring the acknowledged leaders of the former BLDto which Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav belongs. Mr. Raj Narain might not have been right in asserting that it would have been possible to consult Mr. Charan Singh on Monday. But in that case either the decision should have been postponed for some more time or Mr. Raj Narain, Mr. Charan Singh’s acknowledged deputy, should have been consulted. The members of the parliamentary board and their supporters would doubtless repudiate Mr. Raj Narain’s contention on the plea that the Janata is a unitary party and not a federation of certain constituents and as such they are not obliged to put off a decision on so vital a matter as the future of the chief minister of the country’s most populous state just because it is not possible to discuss the matter with one of the leaders, in this case Mr. Charan Singh. But this cannot convince anyone. For all practical purposes the Janata is a federation of its constituents and its leadership has behaved as such.
Mr. Yadav has not given a good account of himself as an administrator and he has for months been reduced to the status of a factional leader in the UP Janata legislature party, thought it would be unfair to him to suggest that it is entirely the result of his ineptitude and incapacity to rise above factional loyalties and considerations. But the parliamentary board has not asked him to seek a vote of confidence because it is unhappy with his performance or even because, in its view, the adverse verdict of the recent by-elections is the result of the mess he has created in UP. It has plainly acted in response to the demands of the dissidents who themselves have been guided primarily by partisan considerations. It would have been justified in acting the way it has if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr. Yadav had or might have lost the support of the majority in the legislature party. There has been no such evidence. In any case Mr. Yadav’s capacity or willingness to try to carry the dissidents with him will not increase as a result of the forthcoming trial of strength, assuming, of course, that he wins it. Obviously a new situation will arise if he loses it. But it is evident that a new chief minister, too, will face strong opposition and that the party will remain deeply divided.
If it is assumed, as it appears reasonable to assume, that the representative of the former Jana Sangh in the parliamentary board, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, too, has ignored the interests and susceptibilities of the former BLD in respect of UP, it becomes necessary to ask whether the BLD-Jana Sangh alliance in the states is less firm than it has been thought to be. Mr. Vajpayee was more helpful to Mr. Devi Lal in Haryana than Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde or Mr. Jagjivan Ram was inclined to be. That indicated that the alliance was in good shape. But in the light of the latest development that does not appear to be the case. This is doubtless not conclusive. The former Jana Sanghis in UP might well support Mr. Yadav and give him a majority large enough to embarrass his opponents in Lucknow as well as New Delhi.