It may or may not be a mere coincidence that the very day the Janata chief announced his party’s decision to publish on its own the Gupta Commission’s report into the affairs of the Maruti firm headed by Mr. Sanjay Gandhi, Mr. CM Stephen said on Mrs. Gandhi’s behalf that the current economic situation would figure prominently in the Congress (I) election campaign. But coincidence or not, Mrs. Gandhi has made an adroit move. It is immaterial whether or not she has adopted this stance in order to divert attention from her son’s and her own alleged wrongdoing. What is material is that as she focuses attention on vital national issues like the rapid rise in prices, stagnation in industrial production and the sharp decline in discipline on the railways and the coalfields, she will once again be seen to be the national leader who is concerned primarily with urgent problems and wishes to tackle them. The contrast between her and her opponents will be particularly sharp if they concentrate, as they may well do, judging by Mr. Chandra Shekhar’s and Mr. YB Chavan’s statements, on her past actions. Mr. Jagjivan Ram, the Janata’s nominee for prime ministership in case it secures a majority in the Lok Sabha either on its own or with the help of such allies as it is able to win before or after the poll, has avoided attacks on her. But as the campaign gathers momentum, his sane approach is not likely to prevail.
The issue raised by Mr. Chandra Shekhar is both moral and political. Since Mrs. Gandhi has never made use of the information which must have come into her possession when she was Prime Minister for 11 long years to fight her leading opponents, it is only proper in moral terms that they do the same. It would have been partisan on our part to make this point if we were convinced that other politicians, who have held ministerial offices, have not been guilty of arbitrariness and other malpractices with which Mrs. Gandhi is being charged. On the contrary, we are convinced that they have been guilty of such acts and that as Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi could have, if she was so inclined, prosecuted them as they are prosecuting her. Mr. Chandra Shekhar may well argue that there is a world of difference between vague, unproven charges and charges established by a properly constituted commission of inquiry. But he must know that inquiry commissions have established charges against other political figures, Mr. Biju Patnaik and Mr. Prakash Singh Badal for instance, and that Mrs. Gandhi has never referred to them, not in the March 1977 election when she was fighting with her back to the wall nor in the last two years when she has been harassed day after day. He must know, too, that Mr. Morarji Desai himself, when he was Prime Minister, spoke of how Mrs. Gandhi had given him a clean chit in 1969. Mrs. Gandhi has in the past made some vague charges regarding foreign money against unnamed opponents and we have criticized her for it because we have held that it was not worthy of her. But witness the difference between her and some others in this regard as well.
It is not possible for us to determine whether or not she removed Mr. HN Bahuguna as UP’s chief minister during the emergency because she felt that he had drawn too close to the Soviet embassy. But we know that even if she had entertained some such misgiving and acted on it, she did not give expression to it again, not even at the time of the critical March 1977 election. Mr Charan Singh, on the other hand, thought nothing of accusing Mr Bahuguna of being a KGB agent in a letter to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Morarji Desai. Similarly, to the best of our knowledge, no similar letter written by one of Mrs. Gandhi’s colleagues about another has, unlike Mr. Charan Singh’s and Mr. Bahuguna’s spirited reply, ever leaked out. It will be interesting to find out how these two letters fell into the hands of some journalists. Also, while Mr. Raj Narain is making one corruption charge after another against Mr. Jagjivan Ram, who was his colleague in the Janata till only the other day, Mrs. Gandhi has never spoken one word which casts doubt on Mr. Ram’s probity. Surely her detractors should take a pause and ask the question as to why she has shown so much restraint when her personal integrity has been under attack day after day – what charge is there from corruption to murder which has not been hurled at her? The answer is not far to seek. Mrs. Gandhi has been concerned that the system should not be discredited and she has known (a) that even public spirited and honest politicians have to make compromises, and (b) that to bring them into disrepute is to endanger the system. She has often been accused of being vindictive. But she has not harassed her political foes as some of them have harassed her.
By this reckoning we would have been opposed to Mr. Chandra Shekhar’s action even if the Gupta Commission’s report was spotlighting some hitherto dark area of our public life. As it happens, the charges in question have been fully aired. Indeed, the worst that can be said and proved against Mrs. Gandhi in connection with the Maruti case can only be small beer compared to the heady wine served by the Shah Commission. For the charges looked into by Mr. Shah included the charge of subversion of the Constitution, the suppression of the press and the excesses in connection with the family planning and slum clearance campaigns. Thus it cannot be said that the people do not know the kind of individual they are dealing with in Mrs Gandhi. If, therefore, a very substantial section of them still prefers her to others, it is not for want of knowledge of her character and personality. It can perhaps be argued that most of these people are illiterate and ignorant. In that case there is precious little Mr. Chandra Shekhar and his colleagues can do now to improve matters. The truth, however, is different. It is that excesses got blown out of all proportion during the emergency because in the absence of a free press the rumour mill had a free run of the country, that gradually a fairer picture has emerged and that millions of ordinary people continue to trust her to provide a more fair and efficient government than her challengers.
Mr. Chandra Shekhar said on Thursday that he was releasing the Gupta Commission’s report because of the “widespread apprehension” that the Charan Singh government might suppress it. Since then the government has released the report and proved Mr. Shekhar wrong. Indeed, it could not have been interested in suppressing the report because it was not well disposed towards Mrs. Gandhi. Mr. Chandra Shekhar had said that the report compromises two of the present ministers, Mr. TA Pai and Mr. C Subramanian. But that could not have deterred Mr. Charan Singh and Mr. Raj Narain from using it to embarrass Mrs. Gandhi when they know she is their most powerful adversary in UP and Bihar. All manner of rumours are afloat. We do not wish to give them respectability by detailing them. But we feel constrained to say that the poll having been announced, the administrative and judicial machinery must not be used to interfere with the political process. If that is done, the shock to the system might turn out to be too great for it to bear.
The Times of India, 8 September 1979