After the Andhra disaster, the changeover to the presidential system fiasco. A lot of Congress “leaders” appear to be possessed by a death wish. There is no other way to explain either the developments in Andhra Pradesh or the decision to revive the issue of the need to go over to the presidential system. We have had a great deal to say on the immorality and the unconstitutionally of what Mr Ram Lal has done in his capacity as governor in Hyderabad with encouragement, possibly orders, from some influential individuals in New Delhi and we do not need to go over that ground again. The more relevant point in the present context is that the timing of the Andhra operations could not have been worse. Mr NT Rama Rao was rapidly losing ground; many of his party colleagues had become disillusioned with his style of leadership; this process would have continued to the great advantage of the Congress regardless of whether or not the Telugu Desam split. Indeed, it is legitimate to argue that Mr Rama Rao in office would have been a considerable asset to Mrs Gandhi and her party in the coming election of the Lok Sabha. But, as we know, desperate men with little political acumen and understanding got into the act with the consequences that are there for everyone to see. Sorry, the statement is not quite accurate. There are still Congress “leaders” who seem determined to keep Mr Bhaskara Rao in office as if to ensure that whatever goodwill there might still be surviving for the Centre and the Congress is wiped out. It is almost unbelievable that while one demolition squad should have been busy in respect of Andhra Pradesh and by implication for the whole of South India, another should have got active to complicate things for the Prime Minister in New Delhi.
Mr Vasant Sathe must be a political innocent if he genuinely believes that the sole issue for consideration is whether the present parliamentary system or some form of presidential system is better suited to meet the country’s requirements in the years ahead. Perhaps he is such an individual despite his long years in the business. Perhaps he is also the kind of individual – they abound in our country – who sincerely believes that he has discovered the panacea for India’s ills in the presidential system of, let us say, the French type, and who is so excited by his discovery that he cannot wait to sell it with little attention to the question of timing. But it speaks of the make-believe world in which so many Congress “leaders” in New Delhi live that as many as 40 MPs should have thought it appropriate at this time when the Andhra crisis continues unabated to attend a dinner organised specifically for the purpose of discussing a paper prepared by Mr Sathe in support of the presidential system. Apparently it had not even occurred to them that despite her disclaimer of being privy to them, the developments in Andhra Pradesh had reinforced doubts regarding Mrs Gandhi’s credentials as a democratic leader and that this was certainly not the time to advocate a changeover to a system which is supposed to vest extraordinary powers in the executive.
In the Andhra affair, we felt compelled to draw the inference that a power centre outside the Prime Minister’s office and secretariat had possibly been responsible for it. One cannot be 100 per cent sure in such matters but the inference appeared credible enough. In the present case it is not easy even to speculate on the possible source of inspiration. We are aware that Union ministers far senior to Mr Sathe have been trying to enlist support for the presidential system. But it is almost inconceivable that they should have chosen this time and this method (of a dinner which was to be followed by another to be attended by 200 MPs). One point, however, stands out. Mrs Gandhi is unable to keep track of who is doing what in her party. While this is not to suggest that she has not been interested in the proposed changeover, it is indisputable that every time the issue has come to the forefront, including during the emergency when she could have done whatever she liked to the Constitution, she has recoiled from pressing ahead. So even those who find it difficult to accept her disclaimer in respect of events in Andhra Pradesh should be willing to concede that she has not pulled the strings in the present case. Whatever her faults, she has not been wholly insensitive to the need to establish her democratic credentials, especially since the emergency. To put it at its worst, while she might have favoured the presidential system, she has hesitated to work out a programme of action to bring it about. Who then has been pulling the strings? The country would like to know.
The Monday dinner has caused deep offence, though we cannot say whether to Mrs Gandhi or Mr Rajiv Gandhi or both. Or else six MPs would not have denounced Mr Sathe in the kind of language they have used to describe his paper. Some unnamed, though fairly easy to identify, AICC dignitary has virtually called Mr Sathe an opposition agent who is out to malign Mrs Gandhi by making it appear that the Congress party under her leadership does not hope to win the forthcoming election to the Lok Sabha. This is an absurd charge wholly unworthy of the worthy in question or his mentors. But it cannot be denied that if the opposition had planned to derail Mrs Gandhi at this critical stage it could not have done a more thorough job than her partymen are doing. With such followers, who would need enemies?