It has become necessary to return to the issues raised by Mr. Arif Mohammad Khan’s resignation as minister of state for home affairs in view of the disclosures since February 28 when we first commented on them. It is now clearly established that when Mr. Khan opposed the bill Mr. Banatwala, general secretary of the Indian Union Muslim League, had introduced in order to undo the supreme court’s judgment in the Shah Bano case, he did not do so on his own. He spoke with the explicit encouragement of the Prime Minister and he was applauded for it, among others, by Mr. Rajiv Gandhi himself. Indeed, that too was not all. Mr. Khan was armed with the opinions of the Law and Home ministries and as such he spoke for the government as a whole. The two ministries had taken the stand that the supreme court had correctly interpreted section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that there was no case for undoing the judgment and that Mr. Banatwala’s private member’s bill must be opposed. In the case of the Law ministry, the Law minister, Mr. A.K. Sen, and his deputy, Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, had endorsed the views of the legal adviser and the secretary.
This raises two questions. Who authorized another Muslim minister of state, Mr. Z.R. Ansari, to speak in a very different (obscurantist) refrain? And on what basis? The answer to the first question is obvious. Since Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was present at a meeting Mr. Ansari had organised, and since at that gathering he had even suggested that the government was willing to modify the section 125 of the Cr.P.C, it is clear beyond doubt that Mr. Gandhi gave Mr. Ansari the go-ahead signal. In plain terms, Mr. Ansari, too, was not acting at his own initiative. But on the strength of what did Mr. Gandhi act? As far as we know, the Law and Home ministries had not been asked to review their opinion. Since the elections in Assam were then due, it would also be a fair inference that he was guided by partisan and electoral considerations. In other words, the Congress president had the better of the Prime Minister. It is, of course, not unusual for Prime Ministers to be influenced by party interests. But Mr. Rajiv Gandhi has sought to create the impression that he gives primacy to national interests over his party’s. Remember his statement over the Akali victory in Punjab.
It is also established that the decision to bring forth an official bill to undo the supreme court judgment and to negate section 125 of the Cr.P.C. had been taken by late January or early February. By whom? And on what basis? The answer to the first question is in a sense obvious. In the final analysis, the Prime Minister alone could have taken such a decision. But that only raises other questions. On whose advice did Mr. Gandhi take the decision? Who conducted the negotiations with the representatives of the Muslim communal organisations on his behalf? Was the agreement reached at these talks referred to experts in the Law and Home ministries for their comments? We do not know the answers for sure. But it does not look as if the Home and Law ministries were consulted after last summer when they had submitted their reports on the subject In that case, the conclusion would be inescapable that the Prime Minister acted on the basis of private advice and ignored the concerned officials and therefore established procedures.
Finally, it is fairly clear that Mr. Khan did not resign in a huff when the Muslim women (rights on divorce) bill was finally introduced in the Lok Sabha. He had come to know of the decision in early February and met the Law minister, Mr. Sen, to restate his stand. This raises the question whether Mr. Sen had changed his position since June 2, 1985, when he had endorsed the Law secretary’s note opposing Mr. Banatwala’s bill in pretty strong language. If so, had he consulted the experts in his ministry? If no, why did he fall in line with the decision to sponsor an official bill? And did he try to convince Mr. Khan of the correctness of the government’s decision? A government which claims to be accountable to the people must answer these questions, however inconvenient.
It also emerges from the detailed reports that have appeared in this newspaper that Mr. Gandhi’s two closest confidants, Mr. Arun Singh and Mr. Arun Nehru, too, did not contest the legitimacy of Mr. Khan’s stand, when he met them, after having submitted his resignation. We would not rush to the conclusion that they too had been bypassed. But it does appear that they were in sympathy with his viewpoint and that they were concerned mainly about the embarrassment the resignation would cause to the Prime Minister which incidentally appears to have been Mr. Gandhi’s own concern as well when Mr. Khan called on him.