In an article in these columns last Wednesday, I cited our experience over the last six decades in support of my contention that Indian political parties are critically dependent on towering individuals for their survival and growth and that Indian society is not able to produce and sustain an opposition party capable of taking over the task of governing the country. This raises two questions. Why is it so? And how are we to manage our political affairs in the light of this incontrovertible fact?
Obvious
The answer to the first question is obvious. India is a highly fragmented society and cannot produce a popular and representative organisation which is capable of rising above these divisions unless the organisation is headed by an individual who can serve as a symbol of the aspiration for national unity. Thus, Gandhiji built the Congress which fought for and won independence. The party such as it was at the end of World War I did not throw up Gandhiji. In fact, he did not belong to it. He came from South Africa and seized its leadership as it were by storm. He gave it the popularity, influence and discipline it came to possess. Similarly, Nehru kept the Congress in power from 1947 to 1964 and Mrs Gandhi has done so since 1966, with the exception of the Janata-Lok Dal interregnum.
Two inter-related propositions are implicit in the above observation. First, that despite all its divisions India has been moving towards nationhood. Else, there would be no question of its looking for and finding symbols of national unity – Gandhiji, Nehru and Mrs Gandhi. Secondly, that despite the progress towards nationhood, Indian society remains essentially a loose confederation whose constituents, as defined by religion, language and caste, are sufficiently resilient and strong to survive and, indeed, prosper amidst all the changes that have been taking place, especially since independence.
These two facts define the political parameters within which we have to function. Thus, if we need a towering political figure to head the ruling party in order that it be capable of staying together and managing the affairs of the country, the supreme leader needs to concede to the political expressions of the Indian society’s constituents a degree of autonomy. Nehru emphasised the fact of unity amidst the country’s diversity for the understandable reason that his mission was to promote nationalism. But it is necessary to allow a certain play to the forces of diversity and not dismiss them by giving them bad names like fissiparous tendencies, communalism, regionalism and casteism. They become intolerable only when they are too assertive and aggressive.
Gandhiji recognised these two apparently contradictory features of the Indian reality and so shaped the Congress organisation that it could at once provide for a highly centralised leadership and initiative at various levels. The balance was obviously a delicate one which, in view of the struggle against the British Raj, was tilted in favour of the central leadership. But Gandhiji and his close lieutenants were sensitive to the need for allowing the diverse nature of Indian society to be reflected in the party. That was partly why provincial Congress committees were organised on the basis of linguistic units as well and not only on the basis of the existing administrative units. Also, care was taken to ensure that various communities, regions and castes were represented in the leadership at all levels.
Nehru maintained this balance, though under him, too, it continued to be tilted in favour of the Centre (in the party as well as the government). The compulsion then was to preserve the unity of the country, which had been rudely shaken by partition and the terrible communal riots, and to push its economic development through centrally-directed planning. Even so, he maintained a balance between Central authority and regional autonomy. Thus, chief ministers like Govind Ballabh Pant and BC Roy continued to enjoy considerable power and prestige under him. At the Centre, he deferred to colleagues like Maulana Azad, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Pant, TT Krishnamachari and Krishna Menon.
This balance has been disturbed under Mrs Gandhi. It is as easy to blame her for it as to exonerate her. A fairly convincing case can be made for either viewpoint, though it is fashionable to hold her responsible for the apparent institutional decay and disequilibrium. Such partisan exercises are, however, futile. For the truth is that circumstances and Mrs Gandhi’s personality have interacted to produce the situation we face.
Forced
My own view has been that her critics have a less convincing case than she does. As I have assessed developments, the organisational bosses forced her to go on the offensive in 1969 and split the party. Her critics in the cabinet and the party forfeited their title to leadership and public sympathy when they first failed to oppose the decision to impose the emergency and its excesses and then in 1977, after her defeat, disowned their share of the moral responsibility for both. But it is more important to face the present situation and find out how best we can cope with it than review the past.
Mrs Gandhi cannot but be unhappy over the existing state of affairs. She must know that the apex needs a base to support it and that in the case of the Congress (I), the base has become too weak. Perhaps she was not unduly concerned when Sanjay Gandhi was alive. For he was building an alternative organisational structure with its own chain of command with himself at its head. One could have had serious reservations about Sanjay’s approach and plans. That is, however, another issue. It is undeniable that he was building an organisation which could replace the Congress (I).
That plan came unstuck with his death. Rajiv Gandhi is very different from his late brother. He cannot head the kind of organisation of roughnecks Sanjay had created. But the long-term problem of a political vacuum apart, Mrs Gandhi cannot effectively rule the country with the kind of party set-up she now presides over.
If even relatively small and unimportant issues are to land on her table for a decision, as they do, the result can easily be imagined – delayed decisions, decisions taken without detailed studies, paralysis of initiative at the level of even Union cabinet ministers and chief ministers, the rise of self-serving sycophants in and around what has come to be known as the palace and the absence of frank discussions, advice and mutual trust among colleagues. Mrs Gandhi stands so far above her party and cabinet colleagues that it is often difficult to say on whose advice she has taken a particular decision.
It is clearly not easy to change this dangerous situation. Only those with little touch with reality can, for example, argue with an easy conscience in favour of greater powers for chief ministers or of leaving the choice of chief ministers to state legislators. Many of the present chief ministers are clearly unfit to hold the office they do. They cannot stay in office on their own and the legislators cannot be depended upon either to choose better men or to sustain them. In fact, left to themselves the legislators are likely to make it difficult for any state government to function.
Mrs Gandhi is barely managing to keep factionalism in Congress (I) party units under control. It can assume menacing proportions in case she relaxes and leaves the state legislative and organisational units more or less free to manage their affairs. Even with her there, the ministers and legislators have played havoc with the administrative machinery in several states. God alone knows what they will do if she allows them a free hand.
Despite these difficulties, however, she must make an earnest effort to decentralise decision-making, leaving herself free to intervene on truly important occasions. Else, she is bound to be overwhelmed. Modern government is too complex to be run by an individual, however skilful and hard-working, with the help of a small secretariat. The task has to be shared with a large number of people.
We cannot recreate the Congress of Gandhi’s and Nehru’s days. That party represented a political culture which was the result of the interaction between the British Raj and the freedom struggle, both emphasising certain values like public service, honesty and co-operation. That political culture has come under great pressure with the rise of commercial values which emphasise personal success, especially in financial terms, above all else. But an attempt has to be made to revive the organisation and its plan.
Wishful
It would be idle for one to pretend that one has a foolproof prescription to offer. There is no such prescription. But those who are in charge of the country’s destiny cannot afford to sit back with folded hands. They have to try to find a way out.
It is equally important for us to realise that when political parties, including the ruling one, are in disarray, it becomes all the more necessary to strengthen other institutions like the judiciary, the civil service and the more responsible section of the press. None of these is above reproach. But they have a role to play in ensuring a measure of stability, order and continuity and they should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to play that role.
The Times of India, 26 August 1981