The results may justify the Union government’s decision to dissolve nine state legislatures where parties other than the Congress (1) have been in office. The party may well manage to put itself in power in all or at least most of these States. This will no doubt facilitate its task of ruling the country with a firm hand, which is the only way can be ruled after the drift of the last three years, implement unpopular but necessary measures, and enforce a measure of discipline. Some of the dismissed state governments like the ones in Bihar and UP have been so inefficient and caste-ridden that the Congress (I), if it secures a majority in the two vidhan sabhas, cannot but improve significantly on their performance. For instance, compared with his Janata successors, Mr. Karpoori Thakur and Mr. Ram Sunder Das, as chief minister of Bihar, Mr. Jagannath Mishra was a model of efficiency and impartiality in caste terms. Under the Congress dispensation before 1977, the Harijans in the state were never so harassed as they have been under the Janata; the Congress leaders, though not free from caste considerations, never flaunted their caste affiliations and sought to mobilise support more or less exclusively on that basis as certain sections of the Janata now functioning under the Lok Dal label have done; and no chief secretary was ever transferred to appease certain castes as has been done by the Janata ministry recently. As in the case of Karnataka, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, Mrs. Gandhi might have been content if shifts of loyalty on the part of a sufficiently large number of legislators had put the Congress (I) in office in some other states. But that did not look like happening.
The success of the Congress (I) in securing a majority in all or most of the nine states will also help it improve its strength in the Rajya Sabha where it is now in a minority. It is difficult to say how far this consideration has weighed with Mrs. Gandhi and her Cabinet colleagues. But it could not have been an unimportant factor in their calculations. The Rajya Sabha can harass the government as it did the Janata one on the question of inquiry into charges against Mr. Morarji Desai’s son, Mr. Kanti Desai. It can insist on substantive amendments to an official bill as it did in the case of the Special Courts Bill last year. As such it is important for a ruling party to try and secure a majority in that House. One-third of its members are due to retire by the end of next month. If election of the new members had been held on the basis of the existing legislatures, the Congress (l)’s position would have worsened.
Two other considerations could have influenced the timing of the decision. For one thing, the prices have been rising in recent weeks and for another, the Union government may have to present a tough budget in order to cover partly the enormous deficit of about Rs. 3,700 crores it has inherited from its Lok Dal-Congress (U) predecessor. In other words, the ability of the Congress (I) to win elections could have declined in coming months. As it is, its electoral position is not particularly impressive in UP and Bihar where it secured only around 36 per cent of the votes polled last month. Indeed, this is one of the factors which has persuaded us in recent weeks to argue that Mrs. Gandhi should ponder over the dissolution proposal carefully lest her failure to annex the two States (UP and Bihar) or even one of them tarnishes to some extent the mandate she has just won. But if the legislatures in question had to be dissolved, it is as well that the decision has been taken without further loss of time. A lack of decision would have only prolonged the period of uncertainty and confusion. The non-Congress (1) governments in states other than West Bengal and Kerala where the CPM-led fronts are in office have for all practical purposes been paralyzed since the mid-term poll to the Lok Sabha last month and it would have done the country no good if they were to remain in that state for long.
But however impressive the practical considerations, the Union government’s decision must cause concern on several counts. New Delhi has not had even the benefit of suitable reports from the Governors concerned advising it that the State governments in question could no longer be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It has relied on the extraordinary powers which Article 356 of the Constitution confers on it. This cannot but affect adversely the federal character of the Constitution. By dissolving the nine legislatures on the plea that these had ceased to be truly representative of the wishes of the people, the Union government has given legitimacy to the dubious concept of recall which Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan had propounded and Mrs. Gandhi had rightly and stoutly opposed in 1974 and 1975. The Congress (I) leaders have argued that the Janata had invoked the same principle in 1977. But the Janata was a product of the JP movement and its leaders did not possess the necessary experience to realise that they were setting up a dangerous precedent.
This argument does not justify the Janata’s action, but it helps to explain it. In a country like ours, parties have been elected and will continue to be elected to office on the strength of a minority vote. This is almost unavoidable in view of the fragmented nature of our society. Once in power, parties have lost some of: their popularity and will continue to do so because they cannot possibly fulfill the rising expectations of the people who are going through a period of rapid change and are therefore, unwilling to accept suffering as something ordained by fate or God. To propound and legitimize the concept of recall in such circumstances is to sow the seeds of trouble for the future. As it happens, it was Mrs. Gandhi who decided to separate the elections to the Lok Sabha from those to the state legislatures in 1971 on the ground that issues of overriding national importance should not be allowed to be mixed up with local issues. Implicit in it was admission that one party could be in power at the Centre and others in some or even most of the States. It is possible that she has come to believe that this was a mistake. But it is pointless to try to correct it because in the new situation simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislatures can produce different results at the Centre and in some of the States. We have to learn to work a variegated polity in which different parties with different programmes are in power in different parts of the country. The Congress (I) leaders have also been quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment of 1977. In legal terms this is justified. But two of the judges had then made observations which they themselves may be regretting. They virtually endorsed the concept of recall.
Mrs. Gandhi and her colleagues have decided to ignore these possible long-term problems in favour of their present need to assume power in as many states as possible and to improve their strength in the Rajya Sabha. Their calculations may well turn out to be justified. But it is not easy to dismiss the misgivings. The country has been through a series of convulsions since 1974. It needs a period of respite not only from the politics of the street but also from election campaigns in quick succession.