The Janata Party’s central leadership, such as it is, has taken a wholly contradictory stand on the current trouble in the UP ministry. It has, on the one hand, asked the chief minister, Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, to convene a meeting of the state Janata legislature party on February 15 and seek a vote of confidence from it and it is, on the other, advising him to desist from asking dissident ministers to explain their action in working against him on the strange plea that this would precipitate matters. Since it does appear that Mr. Yadav has lost, for the time being at any rate, the support of the majority of the Janata legislators in the state, the party leadership is justified in asking him to seek a fresh mandate from it. But is he not entitled to fight back and try to establish a new alliance which may ensure a majority for him in the JLP? In plain terms, is he not entitled to dismiss ministers who have not only worked against him but also submitted their resignations to the party chief, Mr. Chandra Shekhar? If not, under what article of the Constitution or under which democratic convention? If yes, what did the party general secretary mean when he reportedly advised the chief minister last Friday not “to precipitate matters”? And if Mr. R. K. Hegde did not want Mr. Yadav to “precipitate matters”, why were the resignations of the ministers forwarded to the latter? For being filed for the sake of record? Mr. Yadav was perhaps rash when he asked for the resignations of four ministers belonging to the former Jana Sangh. He was perhaps also ill-advised in not seeking the approval of the party leadership in advance. But once the conflict in the ministry had reached the stage it had, the party leadership could favour either a patch-up or a trial of strength and having chosen the second course it surely is not right for it to ask the chief minister to go into the battle with his hands tied behind his back.
We have been among the most consistent supporters of strong central authority. As such it might appear somewhat odd that we should be supporting the UP chief minister in his confrontation with the party’s central leadership even on the limited issue of his right to ask for the explanation of dissident ministers or recommend their dismissal to the governor and the governor’s obligation to accept the recommendation. This would seem to be so especially because we have been rather critical of Mr. Yadav’s performance and his policy on job reservation for the so-called backward castes. But in reality it is not. For it appears to us that the Janata leadership has fallen between two stools. While it has not been willing to try to impose its will on the state chief ministers, ministers and party units, it has also not been willing to let them fight it out. This is, of course, not a new development in Indian politics. Even the far more coherent and unified Congress high command functioned in that manner most of the time during its 30-year rule. But the Janata leadership cannot hope to get along that way precisely because it is not united. Mr. Charan Singh, for instance, has made no secret of his support for Mr. Yadav in the present case. As such the Janata leadership will have to adopt a more consistent position and by and large it will have to leave the state parties free to choose their leaders and get rid of them if and when they so decide.
The Times of India, 12 February 1979