A day after Mrs. Gandhi selected Mr. Babasaheb Anantrao Bhosale as a replacement for Mr. AR Antulay as Maharashtra’s chief minister, we ran an editorial describing the choice as a sorry one. We argued that “on the present reckoning at least, he does not appear capable either…. of refurbishing its (the ruling party’s) image which Mr. Antulay has wilfully besmirched or of raising the administration’s morale which the former chief minister has deliberately shattered.” This assessment was based on whatever we had known about this then relatively obscure politician. We had no idea then that a case involving his family members was pending in a law court and that his daughter-in-law had allegedly attempted to commit suicide by throwing herself in front of a running train but had survived.
Soon after he took over as chief minister, ugly rumours began to circulate. We wondered whether some political elements were out to get him and were deliberately maligning him. Since the incident, which was the subject matter of the rumours, was said to have taken place before Mr. Bhosale was elected to the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha in 1980 we also wondered why it had not surfaced either during the election campaign or subsequently when he was law minister in Mr. Antulay’s cabinet. We did not have to speculate for long. Soon names of former ministers belonging to the Antulay government began to be mentioned in this connection. We tried to establish the facts. But we drew a blank.
In the past one week or so the matter has passed the rumour stage. Three publications in Bombay have brought it out into the open, though in a guarded manner. Regardless of whether the “reports” are factually correct or not, this must place Mrs. Gandhi in a terrible dilemma. Here is truly a Hobson’s choice. It is possible, indeed legitimate, to say that she herself is largely to blame for her predicament. On the face of it, she had either not made the necessary inquiries before she opted for Mr. Bhosale or she did so through incompetent and unreliable persons. If this is indeed so, it is a powerful indictment of her party and administration. For it would show how casually they function. It would also show that no one person, however able and hard working, can run the affairs of the ruling party and the country without a well-organised and effective monitoring and evaluation system. But these are long-term issues which can wait. Right now, the question is: what should the Prime Minister do? Ask Mr. Bhosale to step down? Stick by him as she did by Mr. Antulay till Mr. Justice Lentin of the Bombay High Court held him guilty on the charge of abuse of office?
It can be argued with some justification that for Mrs. Gandhi to ask Mr. Bhosale to resign is not only to prejudge him but also to surrender to those who are behind the whispering campaign against the chief minister. But it can also be said with equal force that for the Prime Minister to keep him in office now is either to condone the charge if it in fact exists – even that is not clearly established – or to decide in advance of a court finding that he is innocent. The third alternative that Mr. Bhosale should himself step down is open to similar objection. In today’s political climate such a gesture by him will be regarded not as an expression of a desire on his part to live by the highest standards of public life but an admission of guilt. What then is the way out?
Since we are in no position to judge the issue either in Mr Bhosale’s favour or against him because we do not possess the necessary material evidence, it will not be legitimate for us to say whether or not Mrs. Gandhi should ask him to resign and whether or not he should step down of his own volition. We were opposed to Mrs. Gandhi’s decision to wait for the court’s decision in Mr. Antulay’s case. But at least in that case an early decision could be expected. This is not possible in this instance. But we believe that there is a fourth option which is that Mr. Bhosale should now state his side of the story and that the case, whatever it is, should be remitted to a court outside Maharashtra, preferably a high court, if that is legally feasible, for quick disposal. The Maharashtra chief minister cannot plead any longer that since the matter is sub judice, his lips are sealed or that the law should be allowed to take its own course. There are occasions when political considerations must prevail over legal-technical ones. This is one such occasion. He has to speak up so that the people have some basis on which they can come to some conclusion. A number of alternative forums are open to him, thanks to the publication, albeit veiled, of the rumours against him.