Some of the criticism Mr. H.N. Bahuguna has made of Mrs. Gandhi’s actions and policies as Prime Minister is, to say the least, misplaced. It is, for example, absurd for him to criticize the way she has handled the agitation in Assam. She has been patient and she has not closed the door on talks with the leaders of the movement despite their intransigence. She could not have done anything else. For either to concede their demands or to resort to force to smash the agitation is to invite possible disaster. And it is truly extraordinary for him to say that a person cannot act as Mrs. Gandhi’s emissary just because he was her clerk at some stage, especially when there is not the slightest evidence that Mr. Yashpal Kapoor’s visits to the north-east have in a way complicated the situation there. Incidentally she has denied that she has sent Mr. Kapoor to the area. Similarly, Mr. Bahuguna’s description of the Aligarh Muslim
University amendment bill as not only ‘insufficient’ but also ‘misleading’ is unworthy of any public figure who claims to be interested in national integration or even communal peace. Whether deliberate or not, such statements can unnecessarily incite Muslim sentiment at a time when it is exposed to fundamentalist blasts from neighbouring lands. Since Mr. Bahuguna is inclined to indulge in demagogy, it is possible that his swipe at Mrs. Gandhi in connection with the AMU bill is as much of a piece with his general approach as his criticism of Congress (1) leaders on the ground that they have not been talking of socialism. But his close ties with the Imam of Jama Masjid, Delhi, suggest that he might be intending to pay special attention to the Muslim community. Mercifully he is not likely to succeed because the Muslim have learnt from experience between 1977 and 1980 that Mrs. Gandhi remains their best bet. Finally, Mr. Bahuguna is too experienced a political leader to believe seriously that in the four months Mrs. Gandhi has been in office she could have expedited the implementation of land reforms and begun to tackle the problem of the atrocities on Harijans “at the root”. These problems are intractable and it will be a great achievement if we can tackle them effectively by the turn of the century.
But Mr. Bahuguna has raised certain issues regarding the working of the Congress (I) and Mrs. Gandhi’s own style of functioning which she herself may be well-advised to heed. It is possible, as she has pointed out in her devastating reply to his letter, that he has been preoccupied with himself and his position. It is, indeed, probable that he would have stayed on in the party, however grave his reservations, if he had been accommodated in the Cabinet and his supporters in the list of the Congress (1) nominees for election to the state vidhan sabha. This detracts from his personal title to make the criticism, but it does not invalidate the criticism. The supremacy of a leader in an organization is not in conflict with inner-party democracy and observance of generally well-defined norms. In fact, the concepts of party and leadership acquire meaning only in the context of inner-party democracy and adherence to certain rules. Again, these concepts can acquire flesh and bone only if there is a reasonably well-established and recognised hierarchy in the party. There was such a hierarchy in the Congress when Mrs. Gandhi was Prime Minister and its undisputed leader between 1969 and 1977. It broke down in 1978 when a large number of Congress leaders at all levels parted company with her and she created what was essentially her praetorian guard. This could have met her requirements when she was being persecuted and prosecuted by the Janata government. Such an ‘organization’ without a hierarchy wherein leaders at each level are assured of her confidence and support in the exercise of their authority cannot help her run the affairs of the country. This may be a transition period in the life of the Congress (I) on several counts. There is a tussle for power between the loyalists of the 1977-80 period and the old newcomers, that is, old Congressmen who have recently returned to Mrs. Gandhi’s fold. And the younger generation is deliberately being given a major share in power. Perhaps things will settle down in course of time. Perhaps a new hierarchy will arise and with it will come free discussion and respect for norms. The process can be accelerated if Mrs. Gandhi were to show awareness that these problems exist and begin to tackle them methodically.