The issue appears to have been finally joined between Mr. Morarji Desai and Mr. Charan Singh. But it is difficult to be sure. The former home minister has backed down in the past and may well do so in the future. Indeed, even as late as Thursday night, that is barely 12-15 hours before he was scheduled to make in the Lok Sabha his long-threatened statement on what he himself has fairly accurately described, as his ‘expulsion’ from the Union cabinet on June 29, he was hoping for ‘a miracle” which would enable him to bury the hatchet. This might well have been his way of saying that there was no going back for him. But even if that is conceded, as perhaps it should be, there cannot be the slightest doubt that he has been indecisive since his forced exit from the cabinet so much so that he could not finally make up his mind even on December 4 when the talks between him and the Prime failed and he issued a public statement to the effect that in the circumstances there was no longer any question of his associating himself with the government. Else, he would not have taken another fortnight to ask the Speaker of Lok Sabha to allot time for him to make the statement. It is not impossible, therefore, that he may yet back down.
But it is also clear that after the statement, containing as it does serious charges against the Prime Minister’s style of functioning and against Mr. Kanti Desai, the kisan rally on December 23 acquires an additional importance. It can no longer be said that it has been organized either to celebrate Mr. Charan Singh’s birthday or to provide a forum for expressing the grievances of the peasants. These were, of course, not the original objectives of the organizers. They had thought of the kisan rally after Mr. Charan Singh’s and Mr. Raj Narain’s resignations from the cabinet in order to demonstrate their political support so that Mr. Desai could draw the appropriate inference and behave accordingly. They allowed themselves to be persuaded to postpone it because they felt that they could win their objective without a demonstration of their clout. But since the prospect of a rapprochement between Mr. Desai and Mr. Charan Singh is now as bleak as it can be, the latter has logically little choice but to use the rally to press the attack on the former – within the Janata party if he thinks it is still possible for him to win sufficient support there – or to announce his intention to revive his BLD or launch a new party under a different name in case he has concluded that the second course would be more to his advantage. Like other human beings, political leaders are not logical. Mr. Charan Singh may still choose to bide his time for other reasons as well.
As for embarrassing Mr. Desai in the Janata party, Mr. Charan Singh has chosen the least opportune time to renew the attack. For he has made his statement at a time when Mr. Desai’s stock is high within the ruling party on account of his role in the imprisonment and expulsion from the Lok Sabha of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The action may, in all probability will, create problems for the Janata party and government leaders subsequently. But that is a different issue which is not pertinent at the moment. The important point right now is that Mr. Desai has a majority of Janata MPs firmly ranged behind him, that the hardliners (on the issue of the quantum of punishment for Mrs. Gandhi) in the party are not likely to tolerate a challenge to him soon and that this must reduce, on the one hand, Mr. Charan Singh’s influence in the Janata, and on the other, the number of the MPs who would be willing to leave it with him if he chooses to quit. The situation in the country is also not particularly favourable for launching a new party. For the is scene is bound to be dominated by forthcoming trial of Mrs. Gandhi and the people are likely to be even more firmly divided on that basis. But the fact that he has allowed himself to be outmaneuvered or that he has been maladroit enough to push himself into a corner does not mean that he has no option but to bide his time in the Janata or that he cannot exercise it. All in all, the situation is too nebulous to permit us to draw a firm conclusion either way.
As for the statement itself, it does not contain anything new. In effect, Mr. Charan Singh has made three substantive points. The prime minister forced him out of the cabinet because as home minister he was pressing for a probe by a commission of inquiry into the affairs of Mr. Kanti Desai, that Mr. Morarji Desai himself has not respected the concept of collective responsibility because he has made statements on Sikkim, Goa and the country’s nuclear policy without any reference to the cabinet, and that the Prime Minister’s offer to refer specific charges against his son to the Chief Justice of India is untenable because it does not have the force of law behind it and the Chief Justice cannot summon witnesses and evidence as a commission of inquiry can.
In reply to the first charge, Mr. Desai has pointed out that though Mr. Charan Singh had demanded the inquiry into Mr. Kanti Desai’s affairs on March 21, he (Mr. Morarji Desai) did not accept the then home minister’s resignation when it was first tendered to him on April 7. This meets the charge but only partially. For, it is well known that tension continued to build up between them at least partly on the Kanti issue and that but for it the breaking point might not have been reached on June 28-29 when first Mr. Charan Singh issued the famous “pack of impotent men” statement from his sick-bed which the Prime Minister regarded as a grave enough provocation to ask for his resignation. It is not possible to separate the cause and effect in this case. As for the other two points, Mr. Charan Singh’s position is clearly untenable on Sikkim and Goa. For Mr. Desai has in these two cases done no more than repeat statements which he had made earlier while in opposition. It might not have been proper for him to recall his earlier stand on these issues of national importance. Indeed, Prime Ministers normally do not indulge in such luxuries. But it does not involve violation of the concept of collective responsibility.
On the issue of nuclear policy, the former home minister is on a more solid ground inasmuch as Mr. Desai’s original statement ruling out tests even for peaceful purposes without doubt constituted a departure from the established policy. He has since made another statement in which he has drawn a distinction between a blast and a test in an effort to whittle down his earlier commitment to the outside world. But that can hardly convince anyone, especially when the government’s present policy is far from clear. The Kanti issue is much more complicated. The home minister has a point when he says that charges against ministers and their relations must not be ignored in the interest of a cleaner public life and the Prime Minister is right in saying that by this logic the government would have to appoint a commission of inquiry every other day. But neither Mr. Desai’s offer to refer specific charges to the Chief Justice nor his present statement – he has said that he would have been forced to appoint a commission to look into his son’s affairs if as home minister Mr. Charan Singh had appointed one to go into charges against his wife and son-in-law – can be said to clinch the issue in his favour, the first for reasons listed by Mr. Charan Singh and mentioned earlier in these columns and the second because the omission in one case cannot justify an omission in another. All this has, however, only limited relevance in the rough and tumble of political life. If the issue is, indeed, joined between Mr. Desai and Mr. Charan Singh, the outcome will be determined by their political influence and not by the arguments they have marshaled against each other.