No one in India can be surprised by the general tenor either of Mrs. Gandhi’s speech in Delhi on the occasion of the so-called “Save India” day last Wednesday or of the memorandum to the President of the Republic which was released to the press the same day. Both are in keeping with her political style. She has always vastly exaggerated her own achievements – witness the celebration of the “decade of achievement” in 1976 when she would have been well advised to emphasize the unscrupulous manner in which the opposition had sought to exploit the people’s economic difficulties resulting from the widespread drought in 1971, 1972 and 1973 – and the failures and worse of her opponents. Even so, there is something bizarre about the memorandum to the President. It is addressed to Mr. Sanjiva Reddy not only in his capacity as the head of the Indian state but in his capacity “as an important leader of the country who has spared no sacrifices (sic) for our motherland.” The intention is clearly to flatter him and persuade him not to recall that the very same Congress (I) leaders, along with some others, had prevented him from being elected President in 1969. This is, however, a relatively small matter which can be allowed to pass. But not so the appeal to the President “to take remedial action” against the alleged deterioration in the economic, political and law and order situation in the country as a result of the actions or non-actions of the Janata government in New Delhi.
There are doubtless several individuals in the Janata party and government who would have been delighted if President V.V. Giri and President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed had openly clashed with the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Many of them have been convinced that Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed owed it to the nation and to himself to have turned down her proposal to impose the emergency. Indeed, the Janata leadership as a whole has been reluctant to retain in the Constitution that part of the 42nd amendment which makes it clear beyond all possible doubt that the President is bound by the advice of the Prime Minister. But Mrs. Gandhi’s stand has been different and it has been right, though it does not follow that the President must endorse even those decisions of the Prime Minister and the cabinet which he regards as being contrary to the national interest or violative of the Constitution, because in such an eventuality he is under a moral obligation to resign. The former Prime Minister has held that the President of India is like the British monarch and she has been thoroughly justified in taking this view of the intentions of the founding fathers and the provisions of the Constitution. How then can she expect Mr. Reddy to take “remedial action”? She has, of course, not signed the memorandum. But Mr. C.M. Stephen and Mr. Kamalapathi Tripathi have and they could not have done so without her permission. She can also plead that “remedial action” can mean advice to the Prime Minister which the President is entitled to give. But that cannot convince anyone. Mrs. Gandhi is setting dangerous precedents and formulating dangerous doctrines which she may rue one day as many Janata leaders must be regretting some of their actions when they were in the opposition.