It is reasonably clear that Mrs. Gandhi has decided to replace Mr. Babasaheb Bhosale as Maharashtra’s chief minister. She has not said so. No one has quoted her as having said so. But the indications are that she has taken the decision. Meanwhile reports from New Delhi suggest that the Congress (I) President is undecided on all other related issues – when the change is to be effected; who is to replace Mr. Bhosale; is the choice to be left to the Maharashtra Congress (I) legislature party; how is it to be ensured that it chooses a “proper” person who can unite the party and lead it to victory at the hustings in 1985? If these reports are accurate, all that can be said then is that Mrs. Gandhi has decided only in principle to change the chief minister in Maharashtra. This means that Mr. Bhosale may be kept in a “state of suspended animation” for no one knows how long. The consequences in terms of paralysis of the administration can well be imagined. As it is, Maharashtra has barely recovered from the impact of the former chief minister Mr AR Antulay’s marauding activities.
Suddenly there is once again talk of lack of “inner party” democracy in the Congress (I). It is as a result of this “fit of democracy” in the party that there is talk of leaving the choice of the next chief minister to the state legislators. This is so much hogwash. In a troubled period like the one the Congress (I) is now going through, a leader, in order to overcome the crisis, has to be seen to be strong and decisive and not to be yielding to pressure, especially from dissidents who did not mind raising the banner of revolt at a time when the party was engaged in a struggle for survival in Andhra and Karnataka. This is not a plea for leaving Mr. Bhosale alone – in his present position. Perhaps he himself is not particularly keen on staying on.
Mrs. Gandhi has chosen wrong men in Maharashtra, as elsewhere. But she cannot afford at this stage to resile from the practice of nominating chief ministers in Congress (I) majority states. For one thing, it will be widely seen as an indication of loss of self-confidence. For another, such is the calibre and background of a large number of Congress (I) legislators in Maharashtra that they can be depended upon to make the worst possible choice. If Mrs. Gandhi is interested in saving the state for the Congress (I), she has to give it a chief minister who is genuinely respected and has the stature to eclipse potential leaders of a rival party or alliance, Mr. Sharad Pawar, for instance. Only one Congress (I) leader fills the bill. His name, as everyone knows in the state, is Mr. YB Chavan. If Mrs. Gandhi has a lurking distrust of him, she should overcome it. If he is reluctant to accept this assignment, he should be persuaded. If Rajaji could take up the chief ministership of Madras state having been the first Indian governor-general (head of state), there is no good reason why Mr. Chavan should lose face by returning to a job he held more than two decades ago. Indeed, there should be a move to draft the old war horse.