The central leadership of the Congress (I) has at long last given its Maharashtra unit an executive committee. In the process it has provided an explanation for the delay. It was an extraordinary, almost herculean effort. The size of the committee – eight vice-presidents, seven general secretaries, seven joint secretaries, 55 members and a number of permanent invitees – speaks for the magnitude of the task. And then there was the problem of providing “proper” representation to the existing and would-be factions. That, too, was not all. It had to be decided at the “highest level”, as such things are decided these days, whether all former state chief ministers were to be included in the two lists (of members and permanent invitees) and who was to be placed in which list. Of course, the “highest level” owes no explanation to anyone if only because no one in the Congress (I) ever asks for such explanations. But those charged with the responsibility of managing the affairs of the ruling party cannot take such momentous decisions light-heartedly, especially if the committee in question is to be required to look after the next poll, whenever it is held. So they had to weigh the pros and cons most carefully, which was bound to take time. What a pity that there should still be some individuals in the Maharashtra Congress (I) who are even now not satisfied with the composition of the executive committee.
Unfortunately, that is not the only snag. There are others. Some commentators, for instance, have already seen in the composition of the committee a move to rehabilitate Mr. AR Antulay and a snub to the chief minister and deputy chief minister, Mr. Vasantrao Patil and Mr Ramrao Adik, respectively. We can be sure that with suitable encouragement from Mr Antulay, this line will catch on. And the people of Maharashtra will interpret the new executive’s composition as an open admission on the part of the Congress (I) leadership in New Delhi that the party in the state, as elsewhere, is little more than a coalition of warring groups which maintain the pretence of holding together because this still assures them, to use an ugly cliche, not only the loaves and fishes of office but much else. The committee’s size cannot surprise them, much less disillusion them. They are aware of the reality of the Congress (I) as of other political parties and they are sufficiently disenchanted of its ways. Even so, Mrs. Gandhi should be somewhat embarrassed about criticizing other “unprincipled” and “temporary” coalitions when she treats her own party as if it were little better than one such coalition. Indeed, generally, fronts and alliances also do not possess such large steering committees or whatever they are called. No, Mrs. Gandhi (or Mr. Rajiv Gandhi in her name or on her advice) has not nominated an executive committee; she (or he) has nominated a procession, if not a mob.