In an editorial entitled “Indian Mephistopheles” on October 5, we posed the question whether it was open to the caretaker Prime Minister to change the composition of the government or the power balance within it by reshuffling the portfolios. What happens, we asked, “if Mr. Charan Singh decides to end the coalition (with the Congress-U) or emasculate his coalition partners?” Though we recognised the possibility that “our fears may prove groundless,” we were unable to set aside our misgivings. But when that very day Mr. Charan Singh categorically ruled out the possibility of any reshuffle in the Union cabinet we felt somewhat relieved, if not wholly reassured. Contrary to his statement, however, Mr. Charan Singh has now sought and secured the resignation of Mr. HN Bahuguna and the President, Mr. Sanjiva Reddy, has thought it proper to accept the finance minister’s resignation on the caretaker Prime Minister’s advice.
In a sense it is as well that Mr. Bahuguna has complied with Mr. Charan Singh’s demand and that Mr. Reddy has accepted the latter’s advice. For the country would have been plunged into a constitutional crisis of unknown magnitude if either the finance minister or the President had refused to oblige Mr. Charan Singh. This is not a line of least resistance, though it may appear to be so on a surface view. It is realism because the constitution does not provide for the kind of political situation that obtains in New Delhi where we have a government which did not at any time demonstrate that it enjoyed the support of the majority in the Lok Sabha. But the issue raised by Mr. Charan Singh’s demand for Mr. Bahuguna’s resignation may turn out to be of immediate importance and it may not be possible to keep it aside till after the proposed election to the Lok Sabha when it may be possible to amend the constitution suitably to provide for the present and other contingencies which the founding fathers either did not anticipate or chose to ignore.
In our view Mr. Charan Singh is not within his rights to have demanded Mr. Bahuguna’s resignation even if serious differences had arisen between them on matters relating to the government’s policies. For, we feel that such a right accrues to a prime minister by virtue of the majority support he enjoys or has enjoyed in the Lok Sabha. We also believe that in a case like the present one where the Prime Minister has refused to face the Lok Sabha and has still continued to remain in office simply because the President, for reasons best known to him, did not choose to call upon the leader of the single largest party to try and form an alternative government, policy differences between the Prime Minister and his colleagues should be settled in the cabinet, by vote if necessary. In our opinion, Mr. Charan Singh is not at liberty to ask for the resignation of an alliance partner just because the latter refuses to merge his organisation into the one headed by the former. This issue may not stare too many people in the face because Mr. Bahuguna’s CFD is a small party and as such was only a minor partner in the ruling alliance at the centre. But what if Mr. Charan Singh’s Lok Dal and the Congress (U) fail to agree on the allotment of constituencies in the forthcoming poll? Will the caretaker Prime Minister be entitled then to ask for the resignations of Congress (U) ministers and the President obliged to accept these on his advice? Not surprisingly, Congress (U) leaders are said to be perturbed, Mr. YB Chavan’s statement notwithstanding.
The President appears to have worked out a two pronged strategy to deal with the caretaker government. He, for instance, signed the ordinance providing for preventive detention for businessmen allegedly guilty of economic offences but only after he had sent for the minutes of the relevant cabinet meeting and Mr. Charan Singh and Mr. YB Chavan had called on him to reassure him that the measure would not be abused for political purposes. He similarly held up for a day the Contingency Fund of India (Amendment) Ordinance. And on Monday he broadcast to the nation – apparently on his own initiative and to the reported annoyance of Mr. Charan Singh – to reassure it that the election to the Lok Sabha would be held in early January, that is, well before January 26, 1980, when the reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes in various legislatures expires. Thus, while he has not turned down any proposal by the Prime Minister and the cabinet, he has left them in no doubt that he feels free, indeed compelled, to exercise his own judgment. Such an approach on the part of the President in normal circumstances would have been open to serious objection because the constitution obliges him to act on the advice of the cabinet. And though the latest constitutional amendment entitles him to refer a cabinet decision back to it for reconsideration, he can exercise this right only in very exceptional circumstances without inviting a confrontation with the Prime Minister. In the existing circumstances this approach may help avoid dire consequences such as the break-up of the Lok Dal-Congress (U) alliance and postponement of the election as favoured by Mr. Raj Narain, the Lok Dal’s working president. We earnestly hope it will.
Mr. Bahuguna has listed his differences with Mr. Charan Singh in order to explain his reluctance to merge the CFD with the Lok Dal. This is a revealing list which indicates how his mind is working. But it is not germane to the issue under discussion and it does not quite explain why he has chosen to accede to the caretaker Prime Minister’s demand for his resignation. It is, however, quite possible that he had already decided to quit because continued association with the present government could have denied him the freedom of action which he might need. Indeed, his press statement on Sunday suggests that he might have resigned after October 24 when his CFD aides are to meet in New Delhi to decide their future course of action. This is, however, far from certain and it does not establish that Mr. Charan Singh has not acted arbitrarily in asking for Mr. Bahuguna’s resignation. Principles and larger issues apart, even tactical considerations required that he waited till October 25.
Meanwhile, on the basis of the available evidence one can only speculate on Mr. Bahuguna’s likely course of action. On the face of it, three options are open to him. He can go it alone; he can make common cause with Mrs. Gandhi; and he can join the emerging left front headed by the CPM. The last option is conditional on the assumption that the Lok Dal-Congress (U) alliance will not be able to clinch a deal with it. But this is a distinct possibility. In fact, it is far from certain that the alliance itself will hold together under the strain of the scramble for seats. One of these possibilities can easily be dismissed. The CFD is too small an organisation to go it alone. In view of the history of his relations with Mrs. Gandhi and some of her aides, it will also not be easy for Mr. Bahuguna to join the Congress (I). This does not necessarily rule out an electoral adjustment between them. But Mrs. Gandhi cannot be too enthusiastic about such a deal in her home state of UP where alone Mr. Bahuguna is a reckonable factor. On balance, therefore, it appears more likely that he will go along with the left front which in turn will abandon the Lok Dal. Mr. Bahuguna is not a doctrinaire leftist. But his inclination is in that direction. If, however, the Lok Dal-Congress (U) alliance breaks down, the whole scenario will have been transformed dramatically.
The Times of India, 22 October 1979