There will be widespread relief in the country over the resolution, however temporary, of the crisis that has rocked the Janata since April 28 when Mr. Charan Singh resigned from the party’s national executive and parliamentary board. The credit for it must go not only to the mediators who persevered in their efforts in the face of heavy, at times apparently impossible odds, but also to Mr. Morarji Desai and Mr. Charan Singh who kept the door open despite their bitterness against each other. Above all, however, the credit must go to Mr. Chandra Shekhar who has voluntarily agreed to step down as president of the party in order to make room for the former home minister. For without this gesture on his part, a package deal of the kind which has now been agreed upon would not have been possible.
The solution, too, is a fairly sensible one at least inasmuch as it does not involve loss of face either for Mr. Desai or Mr. Charan Singh. While, for example, the Prime Minister has not had to resile from his stand that he will not take Mr. Charan Singh back into the cabinet unless the latter publicly withdraws his charges against Mr. Kanti Desai, the former home minister has been assured of an office, albeit in the party and not in the government, which he may consider appropriate to his status. The compromise formula has also managed to reconcile the apparently divergent concepts of the prerogatives of the Prime Minister and of the government and the party functioning on the basis of consensus. Thus while the Prime Minister has not been compelled to take back into the Cabinet individuals who for some reason, justified or otherwise, had lost his confidence, he has agreed to restore the status quo ante in respect of the representation of the party’s aggrieved constituent, the BLD, in the government. Indeed, so fair is the formula from the above point of view that it is rather surprising that it was either not put forward as a serious proposition or was not accepted.
But while the agreement is welcome, it will be idle for anyone to deny either that the Janata has suffered badly in popular esteem as a result of the bitter and prolonged feud among its top leaders or that the compromise is an uneasy one which is bound to break down fairly soon unless the rival leaders display a much greater spirit of understanding and accommodation than they have done so far. The impression has spread that the Janata is not and will not become a well-knit party, that its leading lights are not guided by anything nobler than their personal interest and pride and that they are not likely to deliver the goods in terms of tackling urgent social and economic problems. Similarly if Mr. Desai and Mr. Charan Singh do not begin to cooperate, the tussle between them will in a sense pitch the government and the party against each other and adversely affect the smooth functioning of both. But there was and is no other way out. Implicit in any compromise of the nature is the risk of failure and the promise of success. One can only hope that the rival groups in the Janata appreciate the nature of the stakes – political stability and the well-being of the people – and show some regard for the expectations which millions of their countrymen still have of them.
At the very least the supporters of both Mr. Desai and Mr. Charan Singh should avoid the temptation of making it out that the faction to which they belong has triumphed over its rival. This should not be particularly difficult. For neither side has gained anything as a result of the feud. On the contrary, both have lost a great deal. Thus while Mr. Desai will, for example, find it fairly difficult to cope with the problem created by the resolution of the Rajya Sabha calling for either a 15 member committee of the House or commissions of inquiry to look into the charges against his son Mr. Kanti Desai, and the former home minister’s relations, Mr. Charan Singh has lost the key home portfolio and been landed with the heart-breaking task of managing the affairs of the party whose constituents pull in different directions all the time. Indeed, he is hoist with his own petard. Through Mr. Raj Narain, he attacked Mr. Chandra Shekhar on the ground that the latter had not been able to hold organizational elections. As party chief, he will soon find what an impossible and futile task it is in view of the fact that millions of bogus members have been enrolled. Such an appreciation of what has happened can persuade the two groups either to intensify the competition or to search for means of co-operation. At this stage no one can say which course of action they will opt for. But they face a formidable challenge from Mrs. Gandhi which hopefully should induce them to place the party’s larger interests above their feelings of injured pride.