The imprisonment of Mrs. Gandhi and her expulsion from Parliament must inevitably raise two questions – whether the punishment is excessive and whether the manner in which the Janata leadership has taken this decision augurs well for the future of effective and fair government in the country.
The first question would have arisen even if the Janata leadership had been of one mind on the issue and had decided the quantum of punishment for the former Prime Minister on its own initiative and had not been pushed into the decision it has taken by the back-benchers in the parliamentary party. As it happens, neither of these is true. Hence the second question.
It has been reported by every major newspaper in the country that the Janata leadership has not been of one mind on this issue. To begin with, the Prime Minister, Mr Morarji Desai, himself favoured a milder form of punishment for Mrs. Gandhi. And even after he had agreed to bow to the wishes of the hawks in the parliamentary party, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr. L.K. Advani continued to press for a softer line up to a couple of hours before the final vote in the Lok Sabha.
Indeed, at an informal meeting of the executive committee of the Janata parliamentary party, the third stalwart of the former Jana Sangh, Mr. Nanaji Deshmukh, also supported them. The party president, Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Raj Narain and Mr. Madhu Limaye had earlier made public statements to the same effect.
It is also common knowledge that apart from Mr. Charan Singh, the demand for the extreme punishment now awarded to Mrs. Gandhi did not come from any section of the leadership, and that he, too, did not press his viewpoint hard at any stage. It came from the middle and lower rungs of the parliamentary party. This clearly establishes that the leadership has succumbed to pressure from below against its better judgment and that it has imposed on Mrs. Gandhi punishment which it regarded excessive and possibly dangerous in view of the likely political consequences. In other words, it has abdicated its responsibility in so vital a matter. Instead of performing its normal function of leading its rank and file, it has allowed itself to be led.
High Price
Apparently, this has not caused much concern in any important quarter in the country. But it should start alarm bells ringing. For such a thing happened before and the country has paid so high a price for it that it is impossible to compute it.
This refers to the conflict with China, beginning in March 1959 when the Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans took refuge in this country, and culminating in the border war in 1962. For all we know, the Chinese were perfidious and had laid plans well in advance for the wide-ranging attack. They had certainly encroached on our territory and built border roads, which made the attack possible. But there is another aspect of the conflict which is equally pertinent for us, especially in the present context.
It is that Mr. Nehru first joined in criticising the Chinese on the Tibet issue in fairly harsh terms, then failed to stem the criticism of his handling of China in his own party, especially because of the widespread distrust in it of his defence minister, Mr. Krishna Menon, and finally found himself taking measures like the establishment of thinly manned and indefensible posts behind the Chinese lines in Aksaichin, which made humiliation unavoidable in the event of an armed conflict, if not the conflict itself.
In retrospect at least, well-meaning individuals, including those antipathetic to Mr. Nehru at some stage, should now have no great difficulty in acknowledging that he had worked out his China policy with great care, that in view of the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir and substantial US military supplies to that country, he did not have much of a choice in the matter unless, of course, he was prepared to put India into the US-dominated Western camp; that if a change in the approach to Peking had become necessary after the brutal suppression of Tibet’s autonomy, New Delhi should have gone about the task quietly; and that Mr. Nehru was forced by his ill-informed, often politically illiterate, critics, into making moves which should have been preceded by a lot of preparation on the ground. More purposeful handling might not have avoided a conflict forever, but it could have helped postpone it and that could have given this country time to prepare better for a trial of strength.
Strong Nerves
A far worse disaster could have befallen the country in 1971 if Mrs. Gandhi did not have strong enough nerves to resist pressure for military action in what is now Bangladesh in the summer of that year and the wisdom and skill to hide from the common people the fact that well over 90 per cent of the refugees who had flooded into this country as a result of the Pakistan army’s reign of terror, belonged to the minority Hindu community. Premature action without the backing of the treaty with the Soviet Union could have attracted China’s intervention, especially in view of the beginning of a rapprochement between it and the United States and the US displeasure with India. And widespread knowledge of the plight of the Hindus in East Pakistan could have provoked communal riots which would have made military action subsequently difficult or at the very least deprived it of respectability. For, in that event, it would have looked as if it was an extension of the age old Hindu-Muslim problem.
Both these examples are doubtless from the field of foreign policy. And since mercifully, India does not face critical and unavoidable decisions in that regard, it is easy to convince ourselves that we can get along under a divided, weak and indecisive leadership in New Delhi. But the consequences of such a leadership can be quite serious, indeed disastrous, in respect of domestic issues as well. It could have crumbled if, like the Congress leadership, it had had to cope with droughts, food shortages, sharp rises in prices, industrial stagnation, heavy trade deficits year after year, poor foreign exchange reserves, a drastic drop in foreign aid, and an adverse security environment. But even if it is taken for granted that the Janata leadership is not likely to face such problems calling for harsh and unpopular decisions, the country can drift into trouble for want of stewardship on the issue of Mrs. Gandhi alone.
It is possible that the Janata leadership will henceforth deal with her according to the due process of law .Which in her case means the right to contest another by-election on the one hand and on the other, trial on specific charges by the special court which will be set up once Parliament has enacted the necessary legislation. It is also possible that if there is a demand from the Janata’s rank and file for putting other additional difficulties in her path, the leadership will firmly and successfully resist it. But what guarantee can there be that this will be the case?
Mass Appeal
There are already rumours that Parliament will not be prorogued when it adjourns on Friday so that Mrs. Gandhi can continue to be kept in Tihar Jail. Perhaps the rumours are malicious and unfounded. But it speaks for the atmosphere in New Delhi that these are widely and readily believed. Moreover, since some Janata MP s have demanded Mrs. Gandhi’s disenfranchisement in the past, it is quite likely that surrender by the leadership on the issue of her expulsion from Parliament and imprisonment will encourage them to renew the clamour. Can one be sure that in that event, the leadership as a whole will stand firm and that some aspirant or aspirants to the office of Prime Minister will not use the opportunity to embarrass and possibly bring down the present incumbent, should he prove less obliging to the hawks next time?
The imprisonment and expulsion from Parliament of a former Prime Minister is without precedent in the history of democracy. Since the individual in question has somehow managed to retain her mass appeal, it has expectedly created a difficult law and order situation in large parts of the country. This situation may remain tense because soon enough there may be an ordinance or a special session of Parliament may be convened to enact the necessary legislation to enable the government to set up a special court for trying Mrs. Gandhi on specific charges resulting from the wrongdoings of the emergency regime headed by her. It is bound to deteriorate if there is a move to disenfranchise her which, incidentally, would be a logical follow-up of the present decision. For, it just does not make sense for the Janata to expel her from Parliament if she is to be allowed to contest again and win again. And if the internal power struggle hots up in the Janata, as is quite likely, some individuals will almost certainly be tempted to use the Indira stick to beat their rivals with. It looks as if the country is in for a long and very cold winter.
The Times of India, 21 December 1978
