It is too early to speculate on Mrs. Maneka Gandhi’s future. But certain points are beyond dispute. She has decided to chalk out an independent political career for herself in the face of Mrs. Gandhi’s trenchant opposition. Rather than accept the Prime Minister’s advice to dissociate herself from certain elements, she has chosen to leave I, Safdarjung. It is not particularly material to try and find out whether she has acted on her own or on the advice of her mother, Mrs. Amteshwar Anand, or of some other elements and individuals such as Mr. Akbar Ahmad, organizer of the Lucknow convention. In all probability all these factors have been at work. Maneka is a self-willed person and has a high opinion of herself as a fighter. Mrs. Anand is known to cherish ambitions for herself and her daughter. It is widely believed that Mr. Sanjay Gandhi’s death in June 1980 did not damp her fiery spirits for long. And men like Mr. Ahmad, who once shone in Sanjay’s reflected glory, have been chafing at their subsequent lowly status in the Congress (I) and, therefore, looking for a leader who can win them a place in the sun. Apparently, they feel that Maneka is ideally suited to fill the bill.
Maneka’s decision first to attend the Lucknow convention despite a strong, unequivocal and public disapproval by Mrs. Gandhi and then to refuse to sever relations with individuals the latter considers undesirable has put the Prime Minister in an extremely embarrassing position. The two events have attracted world-wide publicity which she would naturally have done almost anything to avoid. A public discussion of family affairs must be very galling to so proud and in some ways so private a person as Mrs. Gandhi. The inference must, therefore, be that she has been left with no choice but to do what she has done. It is inconceivable that she would ever have acted in the manner she has except under the gravest provocation. But, unfortunately for her, Maneka’s decision to leave 1, Safdarjung cannot end her embarrassment and agony. Maneka might well be the heaviest cross she has had to bear in her crisis-prone life. There does not appear to be an escape from it.
As often in the past, some people will place an unfavorable interpretation on Mrs. Gandhi’s actions in respect of Maneka. Indeed, it is already being said that she has been trying to keep the daughter-in-law out of politics mainly, if not only, because she wants to promote her son, Rajiv Gandhi. And an attempt is on to build Maneka as a future leader. But those who are inclined to plump for Maneka should take a pause and consider certain propositions, unless they are driven by spite for Mrs. Gandhi and Rajiv. It is, for instance, possible that Mrs. Gandhi is sincerely convinced that by temperament, education and training Maneka is not qualified to play a proper role in the country’s political life and that she may well be right.
Comparisons are invidious and we do not wish to engage in the exercise of comparing and contrasting Rajiv and Maneka and handing out a “certificate” of merit to him. But we think that it will be only proper to reiterate our view that Rajiv has been using such influence as he commands with Mrs. Gandhi for the good. The Prime Minister remains tardy in removing from important offices men who have brought little credit to her and the Congress (I) by way of either performance or reputation for integrity. But in recent months, that is since Rajiv entered the political scene, she has got rid of some of them. If there is a connection between the two developments – his entry into politics and the exit of some incompetent and unsavoury characters – Rajiv deserves some credit.
The nature of the conflict is being confused as much by Mrs. Gandhi as by Maneka. While Mrs. Gandhi does not tire of praising Sanjay, Maneka claims to espouse causes dear to his heart. Understandably, a lot of people have concluded or will conclude that the dispute is personal and that it centres on Rajiv. That may be the case to some extent but only to an extent. The basic issue, however, is that two styles of leadership are contending for supremacy. Rajiv Gandhi represents one and Maneka another. Mrs. Gandhi’s style is closer to Rajiv’s despite her fondness for Sanjay when he was alive and nostalgia for him now. It will be a simplification to discuss the difference in terms of the old controversy relating to the primacy of means over ends or vice versa. But the distinction is real and easily recognizable. The distinction is also important, especially in today’s condition when public life has suffered greatly in popular esteem.