India is not at not at peace with itself. It cannot be, amidst so much want, injustice and discontent. The anti-reservation agitation in Gujarat, which threatened to polarise the Hindu society as it has not been polarised ever before, is barely over. And the stir over the “foreigners” issue in Assam, only a little less dangerous in its implications, continues even if in a much lower key. Yet there is hardly a debate in the country on public issues of vital interest to the nation.
Above everything else, Mrs Gandhi’s pre-eminence, invulnerability to hostile criticism and inaccessibility to friendly suggestions, it seems to me, account for this amazing phenomenon. Since the political debate in the country has centred on her since 1969 when she split the Congress party and emerged as the dominant figure on the Indian scene, her new status cannot but undermine its very basis.
Pre-Eminence
Her present pre-eminence is obviously not new. It has not been in dispute since the disintegration of the Janata party in the summer of 1979. The poll to the Lok Sabha in January 1980 and to a number of state legislatures in May that year only clinched the issue. Indeed, her invulnerability and inaccessibility are also not new. But they have become obvious only recently. In fact, one has to be sensitive to subtle changes to note this one. Mrs Gandhi’s position has been greatly strengthened in recent months.
Several factors account for this change. Let me first cite those which have made it difficult for her opponents to nurse the hope or illusion that popular movements outside the framework of the party system would finally overwhelm her. These are: Her willingness and capacity to sit through the turmoil in Assam without either surrendering to the impractical and unreasonable demands of the agitators or resorting to the use of excessive force; her resilience and skill in dealing with farmers’ demand for higher prices for their produce, again without either unduly appeasing them or wholly alienating them; and her ambivalent stand on the reservation issue which helped defuse the explosive situation in Gujarat. In all these cases she has shown strong nerves and superb understanding of the problems and skill in handling them.
Her detractors and opponents would not have despaired of making life difficult for her if the rise in prices had not been slowed down mainly by the prospect of an excellent crop, if Mr Venkataraman had not produced a generally popular budget and if power and coal production had not improved to enable industry to increase production. Her critics are, therefore, left with only two main issues on which they can continue to censure her – corruption in public life and the lacklustre performance of many Union ministers, state chief ministers and ministers.
But corruption has not become the burning issue it was threatening to become once again last year. Mrs Gandhi has taken some steps to check this menace. But she can at best be said to have achieved limited success. The more important fact seems to be that the people are not so agitated over it.
Perhaps it would have been a different story if the economy had run into serious trouble as it had in 1973-74 when the Navnirman movement took place in Gujarat and Mr Jayaprakash Narayan sought to replicate it first in Bihar and then in the whole country.
As for the performance of ministers at the Centre and in the states, Mrs Gandhi’s detractors and supporters alike have come to share the despair that she can neither be forced nor persuaded to tackle this problem. Indeed, rumours that continue to circulate in the corridors of power and occasionally find their way into print make it difficult to sustain the belief that she got rid of even Mr Kamlapati Tripathi and Mr Vidya Charan Shukla primarily because she was dissatisfied with their performance as union ministers. Her willingness to tolerate chief ministers who are either not fit to head a decent municipality or district board or tend to be too arbitrary reinforces the same conclusion.
It can well be argued that Mrs Gandhi does not have much choice in the matter, the calibre of her party men being what it is. Indeed, it cannot be seriously denied that the quality of the elected representatives has steadily gone down regardless of party affiliations. This is a complex issue which cannot be discussed properly here. But two points may be made in passing. First, Indian democracy has inevitably lost its elitist character with increasing politicisation of all sections of society. The change in the composition of the Lok Sabha over the years speaks for itself. Secondly, expanding opportunities for enterprising educated men in commerce, industry and professions have made political career less attractive.
Impression
Mrs Gandhi may also have concluded that it is more important for her right now to create the impression of stability than of performance. In fact, this inference seems unavoidable in view of her refusal to change any chief minister, however worthless. Perhaps the fragile structure of her party restricts her options. But whatever her calculations and compulsions, the fact remains that the people have begun to despair of the possibility that Mrs Gandhi will give them more competent and honest ministers.
This is a big blow, specially for those who believe that Mrs Gandhi will see the country through the difficult eighties. Surely the fulfilment of this hope depends as much on Mrs Gandhi’s survival in good health and continuing popularity as on the performance of the team she selects. Indeed, a poor choice of ministers, especially of chief ministers in the states, can in the long run undermine her own credibility. The problem can become serious if the Congress (l) suffers electoral reverses, especially in the Hindi-speaking belt, or if prices begin to gallop and shortages develop.
As it happens, the incompetence and lack of integrity of ministers cannot in the present context be covered up with the help of populist demagogy. For one thing, having learnt the bitter lesson between 1971 and 1975, Mrs Gandhi has chosen not to adopt a populist platform. In her present tenure of office she has been emphasising the need for increasing production and promoting science and technology and not distributive justice. She has nationalised some banks but she has not sought to use that to project herself as a radical as she did in 1969. The people have also lost interest in ideology. They want performance. An interesting indication of this fact is that a lot of people have come to favour the appointment as ministers of individuals who have not enjoyed particularly good reputation for probity in the past but are known to have been efficient administrators.
Management
It seems to me that the end of the ideological debate has also helped Mrs Gandhi. On the face of it, this inference is open to question in view of the fact that in 1969 she overwhelmed her opponents in the Congress on the strength of a leftist platform and won a landslide victory in the mid-term poll to the Lok Sabha in 1971 on the same basis. But a little reflection will reveal the validity of the point I am making.
The intelligentsia has on the whole been critical of her, especially since the proclamation of the emergency in June 1975. The articulate section of the intelligentsia is ideologically oriented, the ideology being leftism of some hue. The end of the ideological debate denotes the decline of this class on the one hand and on the other the loss of nerve on its part. We are now in the era of political management which is Mrs Gandhi’s forte.
The decline of ideology has, of course, been accompanied and followed by a preference for results. But it also speaks of widespread sense of despair, a feeling that the problems are too intractable in view of the vastness of the population and scarcity of resources, and that good political management can at best buy us time. Such a feeling inevitably strengthens the status quo and promotes self-aggrandisement. Thus our youth has become largely apolitical in the wider sense of the term, though it is prepared to fight for parochial interests as in Assam and Gujarat, and more aggressive in the pursuit of personal objectives.
Finally, it seems to me that President Reagan and President Zia-ul-Haq have come to Mrs Gandhi’s aid in a big way. The former’s move to arm Pakistan once again and the latter’s determined bid to acquire nuclear weapons have brought into play Mrs Gandhi’s skill in dealing with complex foreign policy issues, rousing nationalist opinion and rallying it behind her. The extraordinarily inept utterances of Mr Morarji Desai, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee and other opposition leaders, who are obsessed with the alleged Soviet threat, have greatly facilitated her task of projecting herself as the only Indian leader capable of understanding and coping with the dangers ahead.
The Times of India, 29 April 1981