In his capacity as Congress vice-president, Mr. Arjun Singh has asked Mr. Madhavsinh Solanki, former Gujarat chief minister, to explain the circumstances in which his note to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi got published on February 26. The implication of the move on Mr. Singh’s part is obvious regardless of whether or not it has Mr. Gandhi’s prior approval. Which is that Mr. Solanki has in all probability himself leaked the note and this constitutes an act of indiscipline. As if to leave no room for doubt and speculation, Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Congress parliamentary party secretary, has issued a statement explicitly accusing Mr. Solanki of having leaked his “so-called note” to the Prime Minister and characterizing it as an act of “indiscretion and indiscipline”. Mr. Tiwari has also demanded that the party leadership take immediate and effective steps to curb the activities of “Trojan horses” who “are no less dangerous than the reactionary and subversive forces who (sic) have launched a massive assault through the news media… with the sole purpose of maligning the Prime Minister and weakening the nation”. And he has called Mr. Solanki a “Trojan horse”.
Mr. Tiwari has had a lot to say about Mr. Solanki’s record as chief minister and his “known reputation in Gujarat”. And also about this newspaper apparently because it has had the temerity to criticize the Prime Minister for his leadership style and for specific policy decisions of his government. We shall let that pass except to make two points. First, that it is patently wrong, if not worse, to ignore Mr. Solanki’s role in the rise of the Congress (I) and the rout of the Congress (O) in his state. And secondly, that the criticism of the Prime Minister’s leadership style and policy decisions cannot be met with the charge that we have carried on a “relentless smear campaign against the Prime Minister” and that we have “made mockery of all known journalistic norms and ethics of press freedom”.
We are, however, not concerned with Mr. Tiwari’s fulminations either against us or Mr. Solanki. Nor are we interested in defending Mr. Solanki. Indeed, readers of this newspaper will recall our editorial “Time To Step Down” (June 22, 1985) in which we called for his resignation as chief minister. We wish to raise certain pertinent issues. These are: Whether Mr. Solanki should have written the note in question, whether there is some merit in his criticism of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership, whether the note should have become available to the people for discussion, whether the leadership as represented by Mr. Arjun Singh should have reacted the way it has and whether a disciplinary action against Mr. Solanki would be the appropriate response on its part.
Regardless of Mr. Solanki’s motivation, calculations and background, there cannot be the slightest doubt that his note represents the feelings of a large number of Congressmen. So it is only appropriate that he or someone else should have apprised Mr. Gandhi of this widespread sentiment in the party. Indeed, we would say that Mr. Solanki owed that much to his leader, especially since the latter tends to isolate himself from his party men. This answers the second question as well; the note would have had merit if it had only spoken for so many Congressmen; in fact it articulates a much more widespread sentiment. The answers to other questions must depend on how Mr. Gandhi proposes to run the Congress party.
There has been a lot of talk of open government and party democracy since Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination. If this in fact means anything, it means that the ruling party must now function differently which is to say that issues must be debated openly in it. To argue that questions relating to the party must be debated only in party forums is to stifle all discussion. There are just no party forums where issues like the ones Mr. Solanki has raised can be debated. And it is not easy to separate issues which concern the party from those which have a bearing on the governance of the country.
Millions of non-Congressmen have a stake in knowing the way the Congress functions and they have the right to influence the leadership. Surely they cannot exercise that right if they are kept in the dark about what is happening in the organisation. Newspapers seek to inform the people; that is why they discuss the Congress affairs at such length. But that does not detract from the importance of a note like Mr. Solanki’s. If he indeed made it public, he performed an important public service. Mr. Arjun Singh and Mr. Tiwari are invoking criteria which are inappropriate to both democracy and a democratic party. To think in terms of disciplining Mr. Solanki is to serve notice that the leadership will not permit dissent and that it is determined to perpetuate an atmosphere in which sycophancy alone can prosper. Hopefully at least the press will not fall in line.