The 82-year grand old man of the Congress party, Mr. Kamlapati Tripathi, has spoken out in criticism of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership, though still in the form of a letter to him. Mr. Tripathi has not yet divulged the contents of his communication to the party president. Indeed, he may not do so in the near future as well, unless he, and those who rally round him, decide that the time has come for them to press the issue, even if that leads to the parting of ways. Just now, this appears highly unlikely. But in his talk with newspaper reporters on Thursday, Mr. Tripathi has said enough to leave no room for doubt that he has not minced his words. He has spoken of “serious deterioration in the functioning of the organisation”, of “various irregularities and bogus membership” and finally of “danger to the party” and therefore to the country. These are strong words, especially from the usually soft-spoken old man.
It is obvious that the Congress working president has not spoken for himself alone, though there is no evidence to suggest that he has been in contact with other aggrieved Congressmen. He has spoken for a large number of traditional and not so traditional Congressmen who stood by Mrs. Indira Gandhi after the 1978 split when she was out of office, and have found themselves left out in the cold under the new dispensation. There can be genuine differences of opinion on whether these people deserve any better; Mrs. Gandhi herself had put some of them on the shelf. But there can be no question that the sense of grievance against Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership in the party is widespread. This sentiment in the Congress has been looking for expression; dissidents such as Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, Mr. A.P. Sharma and Mr. Gundu Rao are reported to have met more than once to devise an appropriate strategy; though Mr. Madhavsinh Solanki’s letter last February to Mr. Gandhi was not the result of such confabulation, it was representative of the feelings of the have-nots in the organisation. Mr. Tripathi has lent his voice to this disenchantment and in the process reinforced it.
Mr. Tripathi is, however, not a dissident by temperament. During the Indira Gandhi period, he swallowed his pride on several occasions. After every humiliation, he made himself available for whatever task she assigned to him. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi has perhaps hurt him by appointing Mr. Arjun Singh as Congress vice-president and investing substantial powers in him. But the old warhorse cannot claim that in his capacity as Congress working president under Mrs. Indira Gandhi he enjoyed much power. Frankly, he executed orders, often conveyed through the same Mr. Makhanlal Fotedar with whom he is reported to have refused to discuss his letter to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. While it does not follow that he will take from the son what he took from the mother, it does follow that he should not be cast in the role of a rebel leader in a hurry. We should wait and see what he will in fact do. This is not to write off the letter as being of no significance; the intention is to caution against rash judgment.
We do not know whether there is any connection between Mr. Tripathi’s missive to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and the campaign against Mr. Arjun Singh in the wake of the highly damaging judgment of the Madhya Pradesh high court in the liquor license case. For all we know, the coincidence is wholly accidental. But whether accidental or not, the coincidence is significant. Mr. Arjun Singh has suffered a serious loss of face and, regardless of whether the charges which are now being pressed against him are true or false, his future is in jeopardy. Since Mr. Gandhi only recently asked ministers to resign just because their names appeared in a chargesheet in an alleged case of espionage, his room for manoeuvre in this case is limited. And if he feels compelled to relieve Mr. Singh of his present responsibilities, his own position will have been weakened. Mr. Gandhi has, therefore, good reasons to be concerned, though it is open to question whether he has shown the necessary tactical sense in cancelling his programme in Rajasthan and rushing to Delhi. The chances are that Mr. Gandhi will try to assuage Mr. Tripathi’s feelings. But that is not the central issue, which is Mr. Gandhi’s management or lack of management of the Congress party. If Mr. Tripathi’s letter is important, it is because it gives expression to the alienation of many others. The challenge to Mr. Gandhi has not yet matured and materialised but the warning signals can be heard loud and clear.