In response to requests by his Cabinet colleagues, Mr. L.K. Advani has agreed not to press his resignation from the government. But that cannot and does not detract from the fact that he has been unhappy with the Prime Minister’s stand on the question of an inquiry into charges against Mr. Kanti Desai. It is possible that Mr. Advani would not have been so troubled if the Congress (I) and the CPI had not decided to paralyse the working of the Rajya Sabha on this issue. But if, on the other hand, he had been fully convinced of the correctness of the government’s position which he has had to defend in the House, he would have been aggrieved with its critics and not with it. There is, of course, another aspect of the matter which should not be ignored. Since a serious constitutional difficulty had arisen as a result of the paralysis of the Rajya Sabha and since the chances were that unless their demand for a discussion on the Kanti affair had been conceded, the Congress (I) and the CPI would have continued to hold up its work during the next session as well, it is possible that as the leader of the House, the minister for information and broadcasting regarded it as his duty to find a way out of the impasse and that he submitted his resignation only because his proposal was turned down by Mr. Morarji Desai. In other words, it is possible that Mr. Advani regarded Mr. Desai’s stand as just but untenable in view of the fact that the Janata party and government lacked a majority in the Rajya Sabha. But while there is a difference between the two positions, it is not all that significant and pertinent in political terms.
It is not inconceivable that the informal committee of the Cabinet, which is to go into the Kanti issue, will reaffirm the Prime Minister’s standing offer that he will refer the allegations against Mr. Kanti Desai to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for his view on whether there is a prima facie case against his son if the MP or MPs concerned sign the charge-sheet. But it is not easy to believe that it will do so because that cannot end the threat that the Rajya Sabha may remain paralysed during its next session as well. Mr. Morarji Desai will be justified in arguing that it is wrong to be guided by considerations of expediency. But that is unavoidable in politics. He himself resorted to an indefinite fast to compel Mrs. Gandhi to order an early election in Gujarat in 1975 and she yielded, though it is self-evident that as Prime Minister she was entitled to hold the election at a date of her choice. In the circumstances, the committee may have little choice but to propose that Mr. Bipin Pal Das’ suggestion be accepted and the entire proceedings of the Rajya Sabha in connection with the Kanti affair be referred to the Chief Justice of India. This should pacify the Congress (I) and its allies. But who can be sure that it will, especially in view of Mr. Desai’s role in Mrs. Gandhi’s imprisonment and expulsion from the Lok Sabha? After all, it cannot be an accident that immediately after her release on Tuesday, she spoke so warmly about the kisan rally on Mr. Charan Singh’s birthday on December 23.
That apart, it is obvious that the country is faced with an unprecedented situation. It has witnessed charges against chief ministers and a Cabinet minister being investigated, in the first case formally by inquiry commissions and in the latter informally by a judge of the Supreme Court. It has witnessed serious charges being made against the son, Mr. Sanjay Gandhi, of the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi. But it is the first time that charges against the son of the Prime Minister while he is still in office are to be investigated. The consequences can be fairly serious. Mr. Kanti Desai may indeed be innocent, as Mr. Morarji Desai claims. But it is immaterial that Mrs. Gandhi cleared him of the charges relating to the period before 1968 when Mr. Morarji Desai had held various portfolios. Once this matter is referred to the Chief Justice, all his business activities will come in for review. He may still be judged innocent. But if even a small doubt is cast, an inquiry may have to be ordered which may well embarrass the Prime Minister, however upright his conduct might have been. Those who have been glibly talking of a clean public life, and those who have adjudged Mrs. Gandhi guilty even on charges which have not been preferred and may not at all be preferred against her by the government, are blissfully unaware of the risks involved in a probe into the business activities of the Prime Minister’s son. But the more sober elements among the people, particularly among the intelligentsia and even more particularly among active political workers, should take a pause and ponder over the possible consequences of the present exercises directed against Mr. Desai on the one hand and Mrs. Gandhi on the other. Self-righteousness ill serves the cause of democracy. Or is it already too late? Perhaps it is.