There is not the slightest justification for the “Save India” agitation Mrs. Gandhi has decided to launch on August 9 a la Mahatma Gandhi’s “Quit India” movement 36 years earlier. The Janata government has done nothing in recent months which can lend credence to the charge that it has bartered the country’s interests or damaged its economy or exposed any community to humiliation and tyranny. There is scope for genuine differences of opinion on its foreign and economic policies. But there is at least some evidence to suggest that the government itself has begun to realise that its efforts to befriend the country’s neighbours has only encouraged some of them to try and hurt its interests and that it is necessary to create conditions in which industry can make a proper contribution to the nation’s economic well-being. There has been a lot of radical rhetoric recently, but so far the government has not acted in a manner which can be said to be positively detrimental to the interests of industry. Similarly, there has been no communal clash and big case of atrocity on the Harijans for quite some time. The prices of a number of essential commodities, especially pulses, have risen considerably but not wholly for want of effort on the part of the authorities. Thus while the Janata government’s performance has not been particularly impressive, it has not been so bad as to justify a massive campaign against it.
Mrs. Gandhi has often complained that while she as prime minister did not prosecute any political opponent on criminal charges, the Janata government is doing that to her. The complaint is not unfounded. And wittingly or unwittingly, the Janata government is taking the risk of setting up a dangerous precedent, though it has a case which is that persons guilty of abuse of power far beyond what has come to be accepted as unavoidable must be prosecuted. But whatever the relative merits of the two propositions, Mrs. Gandhi cannot possibly take the stand that a mass campaign should be unleashed just because some cases are sought to be launched against her. As one who during her tenure of office as prime minister has been concerned that opposition parties should not resort to extra-constitutional agitations on the slightest pretext and thereby further complicate the already heartbreaking task of managing the affairs of the country, the second most populous in the world, she owes it to herself and to the people that she does not follow the same path. The fact that millions of people all over India have once again come to repose faith in her puts a moral obligation on her to be responsible and constructive. Even from her own limited point of view, she would do well to recognise that a lot of people are returning to her fold not because they are looking for a strong opposition leader but because they regard her as a symbol of authority. Last year it might have been necessary for her to demonstrate her capacity to embarrass the government. Now she can only embarrass herself if it turns out, as it well might, that even her followers are less than enthusiastic about the agitation. By any reckoning the decision is ill-advised and there is still time for second thoughts on it.