Mr Charan Singh is clearly embarrassed by Mr Raj Narain’s campaign in favour of postponing the forthcoming elections to the Lok Sabha till some time in February. Else he would not have administered two snubs to the latter on two consecutive days. His first statement on Monday affirming the government’s commitment to hold the poll not later than the first week of January was itself in response to Mr. Raj Narain’s speech in Varanasi the previous day and was therefore directly addressed to him. But when the working president of the Lok Dal chose to disregard it and to renew the demand for deferring the elections at a function on Tuesday, the Prime Minister had no choice but to snub him publicly. Mr. Charan Singh could have kept quiet only at the risk of confirming widespread suspicions and rumours that some pretext is going to be found to postpone the elections. This, however, is not likely to reassure the sceptics and the Prime Minister’s critics. For in the past, too, Mr. Charan Singh has dissociated himself from Mr. Raj Narain’s statements and actions only to follow him subsequently, the last such example being the manner in which he acquiesced in the latter’s move to split the Janata and bring down the Desai government last July. Whichever way one interprets his behaviour then, one cannot feel reassured. Either Mr Charan Singh meant what he said and then acted differently because he was not able to resist the temptation held out by Mr. Raj Narain of becoming Prime Minister. Or he was in league with the latter from the very start. And his admission that he is only a titular head of the Lok Dal and his decision to withdraw all too quickly his threat to resign from the presidentship of the party can only reinforce the apprehension that either he is not strong enough to resist Mr. Raj Narain’s steam-roller tactics or he is not interested in doing so.
In recent years no one has done more to lower the tone of public life and, indeed, to bring it into contempt than Mr. Raj Narain. His action in “cleansing” the Mahatma’s samadhi at Rajghat in Delhi with the help of Ganges water and thereby provoking violence on the solemn occasion of Gandhi Jayanti is of a piece with his general behaviour for years. But while no words can be strong enough to condemn this defilement of a place which millions of our countrymen revere, it would be absurd for anyone to dismiss the Lok Dal’s working president light-heartedly. His politics has been disruptive for decades. But he is serious about his objectives. He was determined to topple Mrs. Gandhi and she finally fell to him in March 1977. For it cannot be denied that his election petition against her played a major role in setting in motion the chain of events which culminated in her defeat in March 1977. He vowed to bring down the Desai government after his exit from it in June, 1978, and he managed to topple it in a year’s time. This time his objective is not clear. But it is difficult to take at face value his claim that the issue of continuing the special reservations for Harijans and Girijans after January 26, 1980, can be tackled effectively if the nominations for elections to the Lok Sabha can be filed by January 25. He has something up his sleeve and he is not the kind of individual who abandons his goal easily. Mr. Charan Singh will need a lot of moral stamina if he is not to allow himself to be worn down by his Mephistopheles. But what if it turns out that the caretaker Prime Minister is not able to put up the necessary resistance? Surely this possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand. In that event, much will depend on the view President Sanjiva Reddy takes of his responsibility in preserving the letter and spirit of the Constitution to say so. But we are living in an abnormal political situation as stated once again in the article in the adjoining columns. Two additional points may be made. First, the present coalition is in office as a result of the President’s action in exercising his discretion not to invite the Janata leader, Mr. Jagjivan Ram, to try to form a government capable of securing the support of the majority in the now dissolved Lok Sabha. Secondly, at the time of dissolving the lower house of Parliament, the President directed the caretaker government to organise fresh elections by December, 1979. Together these two facts amount to a commitment on his part to ensure early elections. He cannot shirk this responsibility by taking shelter under the plea, however justified in different circumstances, that his powers are limited by the Constitution because it obliges him to abide by the advice of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Raj Narain has been raising two other issues. One of these – his threats to the press and his attempt to frighten officials in charge of the government-controlled AIR and Doordarshan into falling in line – has been dealt with in these columns earlier. We, therefore, do not need to return to it. But we consider it necessary to examine the possible implications of his “offer” to take over as Minister for Information and Broadcasting. We do not know whether he is suggesting that the present incumbent be sacked. But he is certainly recommending that Mr. Purushottam Kaushik be shifted elsewhere. We also do not know whether Mr. Charan Singh wants to oblige Mr. Raj Narain. But the critical question is whether he can do so if he is so inclined. In other words, is it open to the caretaker Prime Minister to change the composition of the government or change the power balance within it by reshuffling the portfolios? The question is important by itself. It assumes special significance in view of reports that the alliance between the Lok Dal and the Congress (U) may come unstuck over the question of distribution of seats for the elections to the Lok Sabha. What if Mr. Charan Singh decides, either on his own initiative or under Mr. Raj Narain’s pressure, to end the coalition or emasculate his coalition partners? No one raised this possibility last August when the President allowed the Charan Singh ministry to continue in office and dissolve the Lok Sabha. We doubt whether Mr. Sanjiva Reddy and his advisers also thought of this possibility at that stage. For all that we know, it may not materialise and our fears may prove groundless. But Mr. Raj Narain is dropping one brick after another and it is about time the President took note of it and began thinking of the contingencies he may have to cope with in coming weeks.
It is hardly necessary to emphasise once again either that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the kind of situation that now obtains in New Delhi, or that the President has not helped to clarify matters by not spelling out the considerations which persuaded him not to invite Mr. Jagjivan Ram to form a government and to dissolve the Lok Sabha. Thus we do not know whether he dissolved the lower house because the Prime Minister advised him to do so on the strength of a Cabinet resolution or because he was convinced that no one else also could form a stable government. In plain terms, we do not know whether or not the President then felt bound by the advice of a Prime Minister who had failed to secure a vote of confidence from the Lok Sabha. In the only statement he has made on the subject, Mr. Reddy has said that he was guided by his conscience. We criticised this statement when it was made on the ground that the President has to be guided by the Constitution and not his conscience. But it is possible that he deliberately chose to be vague because he did not consider it desirable to be precise. It is also possible that this leaves him enough freedom to cope with various contingencies.
The Times of India, 4 October 1979