Mrs. Gandhi is caught in a pincer; the opposition parties in Andhra, Karnataka and Tripura, especially Mr. NT Ramarao’s Telugu Desam, being one arm of the pincer and the dissidents in the Congress (I) being the other. The dissidents may not have concerted their moves with the opposition parties and they will deny that they have deliberately chosen this time when the election campaign is on in the above states to step up their activities. It is even possible that the rebels in one state have no contact with those in others, though one cannot be too sure on this count, given the fact that some experienced operators with enormous resources and extensive links are at work. But as far as Mrs. Gandhi is concerned, the result is a pincer. It can be argued that she has brought this situation upon herself by appointing as chief ministers men who are either thoroughly corrupt or inadequate for the job. This view is reinforced by the fact that these are broadly the two issues on which the dissidents have raised the banner of revolt in various states. In Gujarat, for example, the chief minister faces the charge of corruption and in Maharashtra of inadequacy.
Most of the dissidents are ill-qualified to raise these questions. For many of them are not known either for probity or performance. And while it will be invidious to name them it can be said that the most disreputable chief ministers have not faced much dissidence. The dissidents have also not questioned Mrs. Gandhi’s right to choose chief ministers. In fact, they have been vulgarly loud in their protestations of loyalty to her and have, willingly or otherwise, been party to resolutions authorizing her to select chief ministers for their respective states. But whatever view one takes on the larger questions – whether Mrs. Gandhi should have taken upon herself the task of nominating chief ministers and whether she has chosen the right men – it cannot be seriously disputed that this was not the time for the dissidents to press the demand for change of chief ministers in various states when the party is facing a tough fight, especially in Andhra. They could have easily waited. Heavens would not have fallen if they had bided their time till the first week of January when the poll in the three states would be over. In the circumstances, they cannot blame anyone if he or she concludes that they acted quite deliberately now precisely because they have calculated that faced with a strong opposition, Mrs. Gandhi will not dare move against them. Even if this proposition is disregarded, it is obvious that the dissidents do not care if they weaken Mrs. Gandhi’s capacity to win the poll in Andhra and Karnataka.
All in all, it remains difficult to say whether the upsurge in dissident activity at this stage is an expression of irresponsibility and power lust on the part of the leaders operating openly or behind-the-scene, or whether it is something worse – a conscious attempt on the part of some dangerous manipulators to undermine Mrs. Gandhi’s position. But there can be little doubt that their actions amount to a stab in the back for her. It is clear that they have not succeeded in crippling her. She is campaigning as vigorously as ever. But it is not possible to be sure that they have not weakened her. Only the result of the poll in Andhra and Karnataka will show whether they have done so or not.
Broadly speaking, Mrs. Gandhi has had three plus points in comparison with other leaders. She is a highly skilful, resourceful and determined individual; she alone enjoys considerable following among all sections of the Indian people in all parts of the country and she has an obedient party at her command. The dissidents have certainly shown that she no longer enjoys the last advantage. In fact, they have provided the electorate the strongest possible reason why it should not return the Congress (I) to power in the three states. After all, it can no longer be depended upon to assure a stable and a reasonably honest and competent government even if it is assured of an overwhelming majority in a legislature.
Mrs. Gandhi must be furious with the dissidents, whatever her appreciation of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of their demands in each specific case. In the case of Gujrat and Maharashtra she has so far contented herself with symbolic actions like the suspension of some individuals. Apparently she feels that she must just now concentrate on the election campaign and demonstrate her capacity to retain Andhra and Karnataka for the Congress (I) despite the heavy odds created mostly by her own so-called followers. Victory in the two states will doubtless facilitate her task of imposing her will on the Congress (l). Perhaps the dissidents themselves will see “reason” and leave it to her to assess the performance of each Congress (I) chief minister. But what about the impact of their public defiance of her authority on the electorate? Hopefully the damage will not be too great. For it is important in the larger national interest that the Congress (I) retain the two states. The country needs Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership and the challenge to it is bound to grow if she fails to win even in one of the two states. This is not to argue that her style of leadership is flawless or that her decisions and choices are always correct But these are long-term problems which dissidence cannot settle.