It is even now not too late for Janata MPs to heed the voice of moderation, reason and sanity on the issue of breach of privilege of the Lok Sabha by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The strong sentiment against her is understandable in view of what happened during the emergency. But she had been the Prime Minister of this country for nine long and difficult years before the emergency and she had led the country with a skill which only a few contemporary world figures can match. It is unfair to her and the country to forget that face of Mrs. Gandhi. Moreover, she remains the leader of the principal opposition in the country. Her supporters are in power in two major states – Andhra and Karnataka. More important, she is the symbol of hope for scores of millions of people, especially among the Harijans and the Muslims, who have rallied under her banner all over the country. Such an individual cannot be expelled or suspended from Parliament and jailed without bringing our none-too-sturdy democratic institutions under considerable strain and driving millions of people to despair. This consideration could not have been urged if Mrs. Gandhi was threatening to disrupt the democratic process by resorting to extra-constitutional agitations. But she is doing nothing of the kind. On the contrary, she has more than once made specific statements to the effect that she intends to work within framework of the Constitution. She has not even questioned the result of the by-election in Samastipur, though she could have since, on all accounts, there was considerable violence there, so much so that two Bihar ministers had to be arrested. We need to stitch the wounds inflicted by the emergency, not to reopen them again and again. Reopened wounds can easily and quickly become septic, necessitating drastic surgery.
This is not a plea for placing Mrs. Gandhi above the law, though there are few among this country’s ruling elite who can in all conscience claim that they have not used their positions to circumvent the laws of the land in one way or another. It is a plea for commonsense, political realism and charity without which democratic institutions cannot be sustained even in otherwise far healthier social and economic climes than our own. Mrs. Gandhi’s spirited statement in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday has obviously not facilitated the task of those in the Janata leadership who have been counseling moderation. But it should be appreciated that she has been living under great mental strain for the past 20 months and she cannot be blamed too much if, from the published accounts of the discussions at the meetings of the Janata parliamentary party, she has concluded that it is out to silence her. Moreover, it is always for those in authority to set the tone for public debate and in this case they cannot claim to have set a particularly healthy one. Some Janata leaders like Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr. L. K. Advani have favoured restraint. But the Janata leadership as a whole has not been able to silence the clamour for the “most drastic” punishment for Mrs. Gandhi. She mucked up the debate in the country when faced with a difficult economic and consequently political situation in 1973 and 1974. She accused her critics of being CIA agents, right reactionaries, fascists and left adventurists.
This was not solely responsible for the emergency but it was without doubt a contributory factor. The present government and ruling party leaders have been more restrained, though not all of them. But by driving Mrs. Gandhi to the wall for whatever reason, valid or invalid, good or bad, they appear to be repeating the same mistake of raising the political temperature unnecessarily and polarising opinion in the country in utter disregard of the well-known fact that democracy cannot survive in polarized societies. Thus there is no guarantee and there can be no guarantee that the consequences will not be equally grim or grimmer this time even if the road to disaster turns out to be different. It is easier to advocate consensus than to suggest concrete measures towards that end in a rapidly changing society. But wise ruling groups do not deliberately aggravate tensions in such situations. The attempt, therefore, should be to commit Mrs. Gandhi to respect the democratic process as firmly as possible and not to drive her out and make a martyr of her. It may be useful to cite precedents from 17th and 18th century Britain in normal circumstances. But it will be dangerous for anyone to believe that today’s India is a larger version of 17th-18th or even 20th century Britain. It is a country in a convulsion which only rash men can wish to aggravate.
Even reasonably well educated people in our country do not understand where the jurisdiction of parliamentary committees or Parliament itself ends and where that of courts begins. Thus in political terms it is immaterial that the committee of privileges of the Lok Sabha was within its rights to take up the question of four STC officials who were allegedly prevented by Mrs. Gandhi from looking into the affairs of Mr. Sanjay Gandhi’s Maruti and hold her guilty. In those terms the pertinent point is that she is to be prosecuted on the same charges in a law court. The law court in question may not take note of the findings of the committee of privileges and may judge her on the strength of the evidence before it. But Mrs. Gandhi has a point when she says: “…by launching a criminal case against me, the Janata party government had gagged me and made it impossible for me to put forth my defence in the present case. Could this be described as a reasonable opportunity for defence?”
This is a telling point to which the Janata government has not made and cannot now make a convincing reply. It can doubtless announce a decision to withdraw the case from the court. But that cannot clinch the issue. It is now too late for that. For the committee of privileges has conducted its inquiry into the charge without having had the benefit of Mrs. Gandhi’s cooperation, which cooperation she, as she has rightly explained, could not have provided except at the risk of prejudicing her case in court. The committee might, for all we know, have come to the same conclusion even if Mrs. Gandhi had given evidence before it. For it is possible that she does not have a defence which can stand close scrutiny. But that, too, is immaterial. She has been judged in absentia and she has had good reasons to be absent. In the circumstances justice cannot be done and seen to be done by withdrawing the case and it will be unfair to punish her on the basis of ex-parte findings. Since apology is due only after guilt has been clearly established under the due process, it will also not be fair to ask her to apologise even if the demand is accompanied by an official announcement that the case in the court will not be pursued.
On the other hand, it is not possible for the Lok Sabha to disregard the report of its privileges committee. But since the committee itself has left the punishment to be determined by the House, it can in its collective wisdom be content with a reprimand. While such a decision by the Lok Sabha will not prejudice her case in the court, in case the government goes ahead with it, it will meet the requirements of parliamentary rules, procedures and conventions. Mr. Desai’s motion to revise his original motion before the House suggests that he has fallen in line with the hawks. But this is an extraordinary situation in which it is not unusual for Prime Ministers to have second or third or fourth thoughts. Almost all opposition parties favour a moderate approach. Mr. Desai should not disregard their viewpoint just because the hawks in his own party want Mrs. Gandhi to be banished from Parliament. He should also not disregard the possibility that her appeal is likely to increase as a result of her expulsion from the Lok Sabha.