It is not quite clear why Mrs Gandhi convened a meeting of the Congress (I) working committee in New Delhi last week-end. Perhaps considerations of form demanded it. The august body had not met for 13 long months. Perhaps Mrs. Gandhi wanted to convey her concerns to her chieftains and galvanise them for the battles ahead. Vidhan Sabha elections are due in West Bengal, Karnataka, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh by June at the latest.
On the face of it, it will be reasonable to take the view that Mrs. Gandhi is genuinely concerned. But whether she is or not, she has reasons to be, and the gathering of her chieftains could not have given her much comfort. Most of them are a liability to her. They depend on her for their own survival. They cannot do anything worthwhile to help her win the forthcoming fight.
It is doubtful whether Mrs. Gandhi hopes to win the elections in West Bengal regardless of whether they are held in March, as the CPM-led state government has demanded, or in June when the term of the present legislature is due to expire. The Marxists and their allies have entrenched themselves in the countryside and the Congress (I) in the state is not in a position to dislodge them from there. In fact, it is too divided and therefore, enfeebled to pose a serious Challenge to the left front.
But, Mrs. Gandhi has to retain Karnataka, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh for the Congress (I). The loss of even one of them can greatly complicate her task of governing the country because it will create the impression that her hold on the people is beginning to slip and embolden her opponents.
The impression will, on the present reckoning, be unjustified. Her critics themselves will concede that she is the country’s most popular leader and that she will still remain so even if it turns out that the people in Haryana or Karnataka or Himachal Pradesh are so disenchanted with the performance of her party that they throw it out of office.
Personal Appeal
But while the Congress (I) will win, if it does win, the elections in the three states mainly on the strength of her personal appeal, its defeat in even one of them on account of its lacklustre performance will hurt her despite the peoples continuing respect and affection for her. This link between cause and effect is patently unjust to Mrs. Gandhi. But it cannot be broken. The supreme leader must pay for the crimes of those whom she accepts as her followers.
This link between the performance of her party and her own fortunes did not exist when the party was out of power in 1978 and 1979. During that period Mrs. Gandhi could depend on the revival of the reservoir of goodwill for her especially in view of her persecution by the Janata government, and appeal to the people to return the Congress (I) to office on the basis of the promise that she will guarantee good performance by it. Her promise was her bond.
But once the Congress (I) was in power first at the centre and then in most of the states, this one-way traffic – the party cashing in on Mrs. Gandhi’s popularity – could not continue. The party had to perform on its own, particularly in the states where she cannot possibly direct the administration personally, if it was not to expose the leader to the risk of erosion of her own support.
The party units in several states have not done well. In two states, Mrs. Gandhi has had to remove chief ministers at least partly because they had attracted serious charges of corruption and abuse of authority. And her most ardent supporters are unable to understand why she has not followed the same course in some more states.
Mrs. Gandhi’s detractors blame her entirely for this state of affairs. There is some merit in their criticism inasmuch as the chief ministers owe their power and position to her and she has been either reluctant or unable or both to enforce accountability on them. Essentially the problem is much more complicated. But ordinary people cannot be expected to grasp such complexities and allow for them in judging a leader.
Great Pressure
India has been going through a process of change which it is not even possible to define in terms of the Marxist or any other well-known concept. This process of change resulting in the rise of the middle peasantry in the countryside and the self-employed in the urban areas has put enormous pressure on the political system so much so that the system has almost got distorted. It broke down in the states in 1967 when the Congress was ousted from office in all north Indian states and there was no viable party or coalition of parties to take its place. Since then most states have managed their affairs on an ad hoc basis. Even this has been possible simply because on the strength of her personality, political skill and appeal Mrs. Gandhi has been able to preserve a semblance of continuity, order and limited progress.
Even reasonably well-educated people cannot but be expected to keep in view these and other equally valid considerations when they assess Mrs. Gandhi’s role. They apply a much simpler logic. They argue that having accepted the reins of office, she owes it to them to provide a relatively clean and efficient administration. They are not concerned that the instruments at her disposal are inadequate. As far as they are concerned, it is her business to assemble the proper instruments.
A change of this magnitude makes it extremely difficult for any leader to ensure continuity and adherence to established procedures and norms because social, economic and political upheavals throw up buccaneers in every field. This has happened in every sphere of activity in our country. But since so much power has come to be concentrated in the state machinery and because the politicians in office refuse to distinguish between the state and the governments they constitute, attention has inevitably come to be focussed on the wrong-doing of the leaders of the Congress (I).
There is just no escape from this limelight for those in power, however justified may be Mrs. Gandhi’s criticism of opposition parties, of their performance while in office and of their double standards or lack of standards. In fact, the irony of it all is that the more uncertain the situation, the greater the popular yearning for order and respect for norms. Mrs. Gandhi owes her appeal partly to this yearning. She cannot avoid the obligation it imposes on her – the obligation to see to it that the Congress (I) is a force for order and not disorder.
Mrs. Gandhi cannot claim that she has fulfilled this obligation or, indeed, that she has tried seriously enough. She has virtually neglected the party in the last two years, making it appear as if she has come to the conclusion that there is nothing much she can do to it or about it. She has made sure that dissidents do not become too active in the party in the states. This step has been necessary. Since the old hierarchy in the party broke down as a result of the Congress splits in 1969 and 1978 and the induction into the organisation of a large number of raw young men through the Youth Congress under Mr. Sanjay Gandhi’s very different style of leadership, it is just not possible to assure the survival of Congress (I) state governments otherwise. But in the process of disallowing dissent Mrs. Gandhi has also blocked the normal process of correction. The result is there for anyone to see in one state after another.
This would not have mattered much if there existed an opposition party or a coalition of parties strong enough to represent a serious challenge to the Congress (I). In that event the normal democratic process of the party out of office restraining the one in office from abusing its powers would have operated. But we do not have such a party or a coalition of parties. Some of these are trying to merge or otherwise come closer to one another obviously with an eye on the forthcoming elections. But it is open to question whether these moves will fructify and whether if they do, they will carry enough conviction with the people.
Strange Criticism
Mrs. Gandhi has criticised these moves by opposition parties on the ground that these are motivated solely by the desire to topple her government and seize power. This is a strange criticism. For one thing, politics is above all about power. For another, the trouble in India has not been so much that political parties have sought power as that they have not shown sufficient interest in it which could oblige them to develop the necessary aptitude, organisation, skill and spirit of accommodation. The agitation in 1974-75 was led by a man who had abjured office and condemned for years what he called the politics of power.
Imagine the Janata leaders being addicted to power. They would have held together, to the country’s long-term advantage. They pulled it down because they did not understand power, its logic and the obligation it placed on them. This applies not only to Mr. Raj Narain and Mr. Madhu Limaye but also Mr. Charan Singh and many others.
Whether one likes it or not, in today’s India, Mrs. Gandhi is the only true politician we have. Indeed, occasionally even she shows signs of confusing semblance of authority for true authority. While true authority is one that is exercised on a day-to-day basis on rational considerations in pursuit of specific objectives, the votaries of the other kind of authority are content with formal obeisance and the trappings of office.
The Times of India, 13 January 1982