It is only proper that Mr. Pranab Mukherjee should meet Congress (I) dissident leaders from Maharashtra on Mrs. Gandhi’s behalf and discuss the situation in the state with them. After all, they have a viewpoint which deserves to be heard. In any case, the stage is now past when Mrs. Gandhi had only to denounce open dissidence in her party and frown on dissident leaders to compel them to cease their activities, at least in the open. So they have to be heard and, as far as possible, pacified. There are two ways in which this can be done. The incumbent chief minister can be asked either to accommodate them in his cabinet or to step down so that the dissidents can form one of their own. Up to the time of the police revolt in August, it appeared as if the central leadership of the Congress (I) favoured the first course in respect of Maharashtra so much so that it had come to be widely assumed that Mr. Ramrao Adik would soon be included in the state government as deputy chief minister. Since then the position has been obscure. At one stage last month it appeared as if Mr. Babasaheb Bhosale would be asked to step down in a couple of days. Then he was given a reprieve no one knew for how long. Now the dissidents are again active in New Delhi which cannot but create uncertainty about Mr. Bhosale’s future.
The dissidents know what they want. They want to get rid of Mr. Bhosale so that one of them – most probably Mr. Adik – can occupy the coveted office of chief minister and others the ministerial gaddis. This is understandable. After all, politics is about power. But does the Congress (I) central leadership know what it wants, why and how to go about achieving its objective? Judging by its erratic behaviour, it appears doubtful. This should at least persuade it to take a pause and examine the pros and cons of the options open to it. It can, of course, ask Mr. Bhosale to step down. He will do so and he will, unlike Mr. Antulay and others elsewhere, do so quietly. He will not try to promote dissidence and head it. But what will the Congress (I) achieve by removing him? By all accounts, he is an honest man and so are by and large his ministers. Unlike in Mr. Antulay’s days, the talk of corruption in high places has ceased to be the staple of conversation in Bombay. Even the opposition concedes that much. This is not a small gain for the party after the disgrace Mr. Antulay brought on it. Almost all the dissidents were among his closest lieutenants. The appointments Mr. Bhosale has made, especially in the police, have also been universally acclaimed in Maharashtra. Again, not a small-gain for the prestige of the party.
Mr. Bhosale is relatively new to politics. No one in, Maharashtra could even dream that he would be chosen to succeed Mr Antulay. But in retrospect it would seem that Mrs. Gandhi’s choice was not all that bad. We ourselves have had occasion to criticize Mr. Bhosale. It was a demonstration of lack of political judgment on his part to be away from Bombay on the day the crackdown on troublesome policemen was to take place. But let us face it, his presence in the city could not have helped avoid the awful things that happened on that day. And are those who summoned him to Delhi entirely blameless? If he was a stronger and more farsighted leader, he would have refused to go and faced the consequences. But that does not exonerate the members of the so-called high command in New Delhi.
According to press reports, Mr. Bhosale is also being held responsible for the continuance of the textile workers strike, now in its ninth month. But is he free to tackle this problem? Is it not the Centre’s policy not to negotiate with Datta Samant lest he gains prestige and with it the ability to control even more vital unions? Have Union ministers not descended on Bombay from time to time to take stock of the strike so that they can make appropriate policy decisions? It is, to say the least, rather unfair to blame a man with no power to deal with a problem for not resolving it. Another charge against Mr. Bhosale is that he has not been able to carry the party with him. But who could have, after Mr. Antulay, without using his methods? Moreover, he has not fared badly at all in the legislature, though it met for the monsoon-end session in the wake of the police revolt. The man deserves a chance to prove himself, especially if someone of proven integrity and administrative competence is not available or acceptable as a replacement for him.