If the Congress (I) leadership’s main purpose in holding the AICC session in New Delhi during the week-end was to bring its ‘democratic’ credentials into disrepute, it can claim to have gone about the task in a fairly thorough manner. It will now be difficult for its supporters to controvert the opposition charge that it will re-impose the emergency and not tackle the country’s problems within the scope of the normal laws of the land. For all we know, the advocates of the emergency were in a minority among the AICC members and did not represent the views of the top leadership. They also qualified their plea in that they said that the government should not hesitate to enforce the emergency again if there was no other way to deal effectively with anti-social elements. But the silent majority at least acquiesced in this dangerous formulation. Only the Rajasthan chief minister is reported to have said that ordinary laws were enough to cope with the anti-social elements. As for the qualification, no one is likely to be impressed by it. The government can always claim that it needs extraordinary powers and freedom from judicial review of its actions. But surely it could not have been the Congress (I) leadership’s intention to discredit its own democratic bona fides. Why then did it allow AICC members to make such speeches? The simplest explanation can be that it could not control them. But in that case it could have asked other more responsible members to controvert them. It did nothing of the kind, allowing the impression to be created that it is not irrevocably committed to democracy. This lapse could not have been the result of a casual attitude. Mrs. Gandhi is too sensitive and alert a leader to have failed to react sharply to the demand for another emergency unless it fitted into her scheme of things. But what is that scheme?
Perhaps the bitterly anti-opposition political resolution adopted by the AICC offers a clue to the speeches demanding re-imposition of the emergency. Viewed in this light these can be said to have been intended to warn opposition parties that they must “behave” or else… Mrs. Gandhi’s own speeches in recent months would, on the face of it, appear to strengthen this interpretation. But what is the strength and morale of these parties? And how relevant is their alleged lack of cooperation in the solution of the major problems the country and the government are facing? Opposition parties are in a state of disarray; they have little to offer by way of solutions to the nation’s difficulties; they are unable to co-operate among themselves even on specific issues; and they are too demoralized to pick up a fight with the government. Above all, they cannot be blamed for either the Assam or the ‘farmers’ agitations or the communal riots. They have, of course, tried to turn these to their advantage but with little success. On a rational and objective view, therefore, they do not deserve either the attention Mrs. Gandhi is paying them or the obloquy she or her colleagues are pouring on them. Is it then an exercise in escapism? Possibly. Unable to grapple with the country’s problems successfully, the government perhaps feels that it needs some scapegoats. But it is not carrying much conviction with the people and in the process bringing down its own credibility. That is bad enough. What is worse, the debate in the country is being vitiated. The people are not being told the harsh truth that objective conditions are adverse and that they cannot go on multiplying, pressing sectional demands and evading discipline and hard work without bringing disaster on themselves. They blame the government even for their own lapses and the government blames the opposition for its sins of omission and commission.
Nothing could illustrate the triumph of the escapist approach at the AICC session better than the fact that while moving the resolution on the economy, Mr. A.R. Antulay spoke of the need to scrap the parliamentary system and opt for the presidential form of government. Mr. Antulay has a case of sorts, though he is weakening it by overstating it. It is, for example, surprising that he should say that even weak and inept leaders can operate the presidential system. How? And with what results? What happens if we elect a president with a twenty percent vote? Surely this is not inconceivable in so divided a society as ours. Such questions are endless. But that is another issue. Right now all we wish to point out is that Mr. Antulay’s eloquent advocacy of a new appears to illustrate the Congress (I) leadership’s state of mind and diversionary approach.