There is a strange calm in the country on the eve of the proposed poll to the Lok Sabha. It could have been shattered if the Janata party had launched, as Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee had threatened, a satyagraha campaign against the new ordinance providing for preventive detention for individuals allegedly guilty of economic offences. But the atmosphere was not conducive for a big agitation and apparently the party leadership decided that discretion was the better part of valour.
There is a lot of talk of the excesses of the emergency, the non-performance of the previous Janata government and the consequent damage to the country’s economy, unity and prestige in the comity of nations, of the atrocities on the weaker sections of the community (the Harijans and the Muslims), of the dangerous consequences of unprincipled defections, opportunistic and caste alliances, casteism and communalism. But the leaders themselves appear to lack conviction. No wonder then that by and large the people are indifferent.
It would have been easy to understand this mood if major issues were not at stake. But they are. For we are being called upon to decide whether we favour one-party rule (the Congress-I or the Janata) or a coalition (the Lok Dal-Congress-U alliance with some leftist and regional parties thrown in) at the Centre, a strong Prime Minister capable, if necessary, of riding roughshod over formal democratic norms and procedures (Mrs Gandhi) or a Prime Minister who is little more than a committee chairman (Mr Jagjivan Ram or Mr Charan Singh), polity which accommodates in office the RSS-Jana Sangh with its emphasis on the primacy of the Hindus (Janata) or one which concedes pride of place to intermediate land-owning peasant castes (the Lok Dal-Congress (U) combine) or one that leans heavily on the Brahmins, Harijans and Muslims, especially in north India as its principal pillars (Congress-1).
Drought
As it happens, the economy, too, is in serious trouble. The country is experiencing one of the worst droughts in recent decades and industrial stagnation. We have already had an unprecedented 30 per cent rise in prices in a matter of months. We have not yet drawn too heavily on our food stocks (around 21 million tons) and foreign exchange reserves (over seven billion dollars). But the prices abroad of commodities in short supply in the country are substantially higher than at home, with the result that the easy solution of large imports to reduce prices and ensure adequate supplies is not open to us. All this should heighten interest in the outcome of the election.
Perhaps I am implying a comparison between the popular mood now and that in 1971, 1972 and 1977. This would be patently wrong for a variety of reasons. In 1971 Mrs Gandhi had electrified the atmosphere with her battle cry of ‘garibi hatao’. Millions of people had then come to believe not only that she was determined to build a more just socio-economic order but also that she could do so despite the heavy odds in the shape of entrenched interests, a lackadaisical and far from honest bureaucracy and a strong opposition which had banded together to form what her supporters characterised as the right-wing and reactionary grand alliance. Indeed, the formation of the “grand alliance” gave legitimacy to her earlier campaign since the Congress split in 1969 – she had been saying that there was a conspiracy to remove her – and greatly increased her appeal among the poorer and weaker sections of the community.
Disillusioned
In 1972 Mrs Gandhi was not able to generate the same kind of enthusiasm and the “grand alliance” against her had crumbled following its defeat in 1971. But the euphoria of the decisive military victory over Pakistan in Bangladesh in the teeth of fierce opposition by the United States and China compensated for it. In 1977 the people, especially in north India, turned to the hastily patched-up Janata as if to join in a holy crusade against Mrs Gandhi on account of the excesses of the emergency. The atmosphere then was even more surcharged than in 1971.
But this, too, is not an ordinary election. As such it should arouse controversies and passions. Perhaps it is a little too early to expect all that. Perhaps things will hot up as various parties finally choose their candidates and begin their election campaigns in right earnest. But right now it seems that the people have been disillusioned and have become somewhat cynical. That in any case is the popular view. It is widely believed that as compared with 1971 and 1977 there will be a significant drop in the percentage of the votes polled.
As in 1971, Mrs Gandhi is the key figure and it is not at all certain that she will be able to arouse the same kind of enthusiasm she did then. She stayed in office for six long years after that landslide victory. Without doubt she was handicapped in the pursuit of her objectives by circumstances – widespread droughts in 1971, 1972 and 1973, four-fold rise in oil prices in the last quarter of 1973, world-wide inflation from 1971 onwards, upsurge in Gujarat towards the end of 1973, JP movement, railway strike in 1974, and so on. And despite all this, she was able to hold down the prices from the middle of 1974 to the middle of 1976. But this was essentially a holding operation.
Then there are the excesses of the emergency and the fears these arouse, particularly among the intelligentsia, which should not be confused with the small class of Western-educated people.
Mrs Gandhi attracted a lot of sympathy when she was being hounded down by the Janata government and she was fighting back valiantly. Millions of people were appalled that Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter and Prime Minister for 11 long years should be so reviled and harassed. But with the collapse of the Desai ministry, installation of a caretaker government in New Delhi and dissolution of the Lok Sabha, that phase is over. She is now once again a candidate for the powerful office of Prime Minister. As such it is only natural that she is going to be judged by her previous record, though she will obviously benefit from the lacklustre performance of the Desai government, the Janata party’s split and the poor image of the Lok Dal-Congress (U) alliance.
As for the Janata, it came into power on an anti-emergency vote. In that sense it fulfilled its mandate because it restored the civil liberties which had been abridged or suspended during the emergency. But it had promised to reorient the economy along so-called Gandhian lines to generate millions of additional jobs. This it failed to do. The economy did not perform badly till the budgetary levies last March and the current drought began to hit it. But the Janata leadership was too preoccupied with its internal conflicts to advertise the gains. And its leading lights were too committed to very divergent outlooks to be able to take advantage of the favourable factors like food and foreign exchange reserves to give the economy a big push forward. Some of the Janata leaders reviled their own government. Mr George Fernandes, for instance, was perhaps the first person to use the term “non-performance” to describe its record in office. Another senior Janata leader, Mr Madhu Limaye, spared no effort to convince the people that the Janata harboured in its breast the demon of communalism in the form of the former Jana Sangh. In the circumstances it is only to be expected that the Janata does not arouse much enthusiasm among the people.
Assets
The Janata has, however, three notable assets. It is in power in some states – Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. In Mr Jagjivan Ram, it has a leader of proven administrative ability who has the additional advantage of being a Harijan. And the party will have access to the highly disciplined, dedicated and motivated RSS cadre during the campaign. It can, therefore, do reasonably well.
The breakaway Lok Dal does not possess any similar asset. On the contrary, it has virtually no organisation; its leader, Mr Charan Singh, is popular among a section of the peasantry in north India, but hardly commands any worthwhile following among other sections of society and in other regions; and its working president, Mr Raj Narain, is not respected much, except among his followers. Mr Charan Singh and his supporters are, indeed, not defectors in the sense the term should normally be used. But the charge has come to stick to them.
Like the Lok Dal, its ally in government, the Congress (U), is also seriously handicapped. It has no leader with a worthwhile all-India following; its rank and file have been demoralised by the electoral reverses it has suffered since 1977; by committing itself to a two-front war against “authoritarianism”, an euphemism for Mrs Gandhi, and the RSS-Jana Sangh, it has put itself into a trap from which it is finding it difficult to come out.
This leaves the proposed Left Front. Its sweep and appeal is limited. It may do well because the main parties are in disarray. But it is not in a position to shake the people out of the apathy which seems to have seized them.
The Times of India, 17 October 1979