It is particularly surprising that Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan has reacted the way he has to Mr. Charan Singh’s cautiously worded suggestion that the Janata be wound up and its constituents be revived as separate parties which should then run the Union and state governments under their control as coalitions. He is one of the principal architects of the Janata as an alternative to the Congress which, under Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership, according to him, had set up a dictatorship in the country. And he continues to equate the former with democracy and the more important faction of the latter, again under the former Prime Minister’s leadership, with dictatorship. This formulation is open to question, especially because Mr. Narayan has spoken as if democracy and the country’s unity are synonyms. For one thing, the future of democracy cannot be said to depend solely on Mrs. Gandhi’s wishes, plans and designs even if one places the worst possible construction on them. It depends on a variety of other factors like the state of the economy and the success or failure of efforts to tackle urgent problems like the population explosion, deforestation and deterioration in the quality of education. For another, it is self-evident that the cause of unity is not identical with that of democracy. On the contrary, it is hardly necessary any longer to argue that under ‘democratic’ pressures, which often mean pressures from the best organised and influential sections of society, the Janata governments both in New Delhi and the states have taken steps – pushing Hindi and the decision to hold UPSC examinations for all-India services in all regional languages recognised by the Constitution, for instance – which can place a strain on the country’s unity in the coming years. But what if Mr. Narayan’s formulation is accepted at its face value and it is conceded that the Janata’s survival is vital for democracy and the country’s unity? How does one assure that the party remains united?
In the beginning, no issue of principle was involved in the conflict between Mr. Morarji Desai and Mr. Charan Singh unless, of course, the latter’s demand for an inquiry into charges against the Prime Minister’s son, Mr. Kanti Desai, is regarded as one. But basic issues are now involved in the dispute between them. While Mr. Desai has for instance taken the stand that it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to select Ministers and assign portfolios to them, Mr. Madhu Limaye has been arguing that the concept does not apply in a government formed by a federal party like the Janata and that it should, for all practical purposes, work like a coalition. Not only has Mr. Charan Singh not repudiated this formulation, he has even demanded representation in the party committees set up to supervise the proposed organizational elections on the basis of the former BLD’s support among the people. Clearly this dispute cannot be easily resolved. In fact, even the limited task of bringing Mr. Charan Singh back into the Cabinet with ‘honour’ cannot be accomplished except at the risk of undermining Mr. Desai’s position. They can certainly meet again and perhaps even achieve a patch-up, though that is not easy. But one or the other must lose face and that must raise wide-ranging implications for the future of the Janata. Indeed, to be candid, it is Mr. Desai who must lose face and be prepared, if he wishes to hold on to the office of Prime Minister, to yield to pressures which he has so far managed to resist. Mr. Biju Patnaik and Mr. George Fernandes have, for instance, been pressing him to nationalize key industries in the private sector, the latter almost equating ‘performance’ of the government with the proposed takeover. What price “unity”?