Going by reports in newspapers, the two AICC observers to Maharashtra have confirmed what has long been common knowledge in the state capital. They could not have done otherwise. For there cannot be the slightest doubt that the Congress (I) legislature party is badly divided, that no “leader” commands a majority in it, that the dissidents are not agreed on any possible successor to the present chief minister, Mr. Babasaheb Bhosale, and that the CLP cannot on its own elect a leader capable of giving Maharashtra an honest and effective administration. This leaves Mrs. Gandhi two choices if she is to preserve the state for the Congress (I) – to send a leader of stature from New Delhi as chief minister, or to place it under President’s rule and give the governor good advisers who can clean up the augean stables which is what Maharashtra has become in recent years.
We have favoured the first proposition since the autumn of 1981 when Mr. Antulay’s money collecting and other activities came into the open and it became reasonably clear that he would have to go as a result of an indictment by the Bombay high court even if for some reason Mrs. Gandhi chose not to act in advance herself. For, simultaneously, it became obvious that many of the Congress (I) legislators had got so used to illegitimate gains under Mr. Antulay that they would not let his successor function in peace. In the event, Mrs. Gandhi made a wrong choice. Mr. Bhosale was not qualified for the job of Maharashtra’s chief minister. But no one else from the state Congress (I) legislature party could have fared much better unless he, like Mr. Antulay, was willing to dole out liquor licenses, cement quotas and other favours to the party legislators. We had then favoured Mr. SB Chavan, Union minister for planning, for the office. In view of his record as chief minister earlier and his reputation for toughness, we had felt that he might be able to control the wild men in the CLP. As things continued to deteriorate, we, like many others, began to feel that even Mr. SB Chavan might find the task beyond him. So we carried the editorial entitled “Draft YB Chavan” on Thursday.
Since then a number of Maharashtrians posted with developments in the state have expressed the doubt that even Mr. YB Chavan, with all his experience, may not be able to deliver the goods. They argue that he no longer enjoys the necessary prestige in view of all that has happened in the past five years and that he was effective in the past because he presided over a very different state Congress party in the Nehru era. They add that even if (a very big if indeed) Mrs. Gandhi is willing to set aside her past allergy to him, he would almost certainly not wish to accept the “crown of thorns”. They may well be right on all these counts. Then the choice must again fall on Mr. SB Chavan. And if he, too, is not acceptable to Mrs. Gandhi or if he does not feel up to the job, the Congress (I) President would not be left with much of an option but to dismiss the ministry and place the state under President rule. Such a move can once again raise her own prestige and even enable her to salvage the rapidly declining fortunes of the Congress (I) if it is accompanied by a Mahatma Gandhi-like admission that the party had let her down and that she would no longer suffer men out to feather their own nests at the cost of the nation. Such an admission of a “Himalayan blunder” can help restore the people’s faith in her as nothing else can.
It can be argued that it will be embarrassing for her to dismiss her own party’s government when it commands an overwhelming majority in the state legislature. Only those who do not understand the Indian people’s psychology will advance such a plea. The Indian people place their faith in the leader. Right now they want, above all, to be assured that Mrs. Gandhi has got the message which the people in Andhra and Karnataka have sought to convey to her. The dismissal of the Maharashtra ministry will be proof enough that it is so. If she is lucky, Congress (I) ministers and legislators in other states may also draw the appropriate lesson.
On the face of it, it may appear difficult to make a case for placing Maharashtra under President’s rule. But in reality, it is not possible to govern the state in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution so long as the Congress (I) legislature party is what it is. Constitutional government has broken down in the state. Indeed, no such thing has existed ever since Mr. Antulay became chief minister in June 1980. Ideally the legislature should be dissolved as the ministry is dismissed. For that would finally clinch the issue and leave no room for doubt at all that Mrs. Gandhi is determined to put things to right. It will be a gamble on her part. But the risk is worth taking.