The circumstances in which Mr. Kamlapati Tripathi’s resignation from the Union cabinet has been accepted are far from clear. Since her press conference on October 21 when she singled out the railway ministry for criticism, it has been obvious that the Prime Minister has been positively unhappy with his performance in that portfolio. The Indian railways have been in poor shape for years for a variety of reasons – militant and irresponsible trade unionism, uncertainty at the very top, inability and unwillingness of officials to enforce discipline and check corruption, and so on. As such it is possible that Mr. Tripathi would have failed to improve their efficiency significantly even if he had put in his best efforts and shown his competence for the job. This was, however, not what Mrs. Gandhi had in mind when she spoke the way she did at the press conference. She was positively referring to Mr. Tripathi’s own performance. If this was not the case, she could have conveyed her views to him even before he submitted his resignation and certainly afterwards. In that event there would have been no question of her wanting to change his portfolio. Instead all reports suggested that she would not keep him on as railway minister. But it cannot be said for certain whether or not she wanted to keep him in the cabinet and offered him another portfolio and whether the factional activities of Mr. Tripathi’s son, Mr. Lokpati Tripathi, in the U.P. Congress (I) have played a role in influencing her decision.
Mr. Tripathi was a leading political figure in U.P. long before independence and he has been one of Mrs. Gandhi’s principal lieutenants in New Delhi since the second Congress party split in January 1978. As such his exit is an important development whatever the factors that have brought it about. But in the absence of adequate information regarding those factors it is difficult to assess its significance precisely. It is tempting to conclude that by criticizing him publicly and then accepting his resignation, Mrs Gandhi has put other ministers on notice that they, too, will have to go if they do not produce results. In fact this may well have been her intention. Mr. Tripathi has never been known as an able administrator. His performance as U.P.’s chief minister was truly abysmal. After the PAC mutiny he had to be persuaded to resign and accommodated in the Union cabinet. But the message has got muffled. If Mrs. Gandhi wishes to drive it home, she will perhaps need to get rid of some other ministers who bring little credit to her government through lack of either competence or reputation for probity. It is patently unfair to ignore either her difficulties or the efforts she is making of late to set things right. Only she needs to demonstrate her capacity for quick and firm action in order to make the necessary impact on public opinion.