By Inder Jit

(Released on 25 April 1978)

Appraisals and reappraisals, many agonising, appear to have become the order of the day for various political parties and politicians in quest of power. Top Janata leaders have held another exercise in heart searching and “operation survival”, stimulated by Mr Nanaji Deshmukh’s timely think bomb. The CPM and the CPI leaders have informally met to explore the possibility of unity among left democratic forces to fight back the renewed threat from the “fascists and their storm-troopers.” Equally important are the informal discussions now on among Congressmen, led by Mr Swaran Singh, Mr Chavan and Mr Brahmananda Reddi, about their role in national affairs and prospects for the future in the light of Mrs Indira Gandhi’s increasing success in getting their partymen to join her colourful bandwagon. Many appropriately ask: is the Congress still relevant? Or, is it now set to be cast unceremoniously into the dustbin of history?

Most people appear to have already written off the Congress in keeping with our characteristic inclination to swing to conclusions. The party’s present eclipse is being generally confused with irrelevance. Yet leading Congressmen and many intellectuals are of the view that the Congress is not only relevant but has a positive role to play in the crisis that currently grips the country. Indeed, a few go further and assert that the Congress is as relevant today as it was prior to independence. In 1947, the party brought about political independence and achieved one of its two historic tasks. The other task of ushering in economic and social independence still remains to be accomplished. As a top Congress leader put it: “Our party today has neither power nor money. We are, therefore, in a position to identify ourselves with the common man once again, understand his hopes and frustrations better and drew up a minimum grass-roots programme.”

The Indira Congress, no doubt, claims to be the “real Congress.” However, Mr Swaran Singh and others draw pointed attention to basic differences between the two Congresses. Mrs Gandhi’s Congress, it is urged, is based on “authoritarian personality cult and has little regard for democracy or the democratic way of life.” In sharp contrast, the Congress, it is emphasised, stands firmly by its commitment to democracy, democratic methods and fundamental freedoms. Indeed, Congressmen claim that their party alone offers “a democratic alternative” to the Janata Party. Such a democratic alternative is required at any time in a parliamentary democracy to ensure its healthy functioning and growth. But it is needed even more so today in view of the increasing disenchantment of the people with the Janata Party and because of the character of Indian politics, the broad pattern of Indian voting and the outlook and approach of the average Indian to punishment for crime against individuals or the community.

Voting in India shows two broad trends. First, voters generally seem to move in waves, depending upon the emotions roused. Second, the approach is more negative than positive; a vote is often given not so much for a party as against another. In 1967, for instance, the people were angry with the Congress and voted the party out in many States. Four years later, the voter turned against the non-Congress parties and the country saw Mrs Gandhi ride to power on an unprecedented Indira wave. In March last year, the people, conscious of their power, turned their wrath against Mrs. Gandhi and her caucus and knocked the Congress for a six. In Karnal recently, the country witnessed yet another wave. An angry people decided to teach the Janata Party a lesson for its poor performance — and for taking them for granted. The Janata candidate’s margin of victory was slashed from some three lakh votes to barely bout 18,000 votes.

Conscious of this trend, top congress leaders are determined to keep their flag aloft and be available as a democratic alternative. The task, it is conceded, is not easy. They lack Mrs Gandhi’s dynamism and charisma –as also the money power and the muscle power of the Indira Congress. But they are closer that there is no scope whatsoever “of any honourable unity”, a point emphasised by Mr Chavan at the meeting of the Maharashtra P.C.C. Unity, in fact, is seen as an illusion and nothing other than “humiliating surrender” since there is no scope for any compromise on the question of personality cult and authoritarianism Not a few among Congressmen eager somehow to get back into power have angrily argued that their party will be reduced to the position of the Congress (O). Mr Chavan has, however, countered the argument by saying: “Yes, the Congress (O) was reduced to a small party. But history will record that Congress (O) provided India with its fourth Prime Minister.”

Equally important are the informal discussions now on among Congressmen, led by Mr Swaran Singh, Mr Chavan and Mr Brahmananda Reddi, about their role in national affairs and prospects for the future in the light of Mrs Indira Gandhi’s increasing success in getting their partymen to join her colourful bandwagon. Many appropriately ask: is the Congress still relevant? Or, is it now set to be cast unceremoniously into the dustbin of history?

Some clever Indira Congressmen have tried to exploit these remarks to embarrass Mr Chaven by unfairly remarking: “So, Mr Chavan wants to be Prime Minister.” But Mr Chavan and his colleagues are not deterred in their resolve by such tactics. Few at the last meeting of the Congress Working Committee in New Delhi were inclined to go along with Mr V.P. Naik, who put forward his views on the question of unity. In any case, the Maharashtra P.C.C. resolution tossed the ball in the court of the Indira Congress. The response so far from the Congress (I) has not only been negative but has confirmed the view put forward by Mr Chavan. The Indira Congress is no longer willing to take any Congressman “honourably” into its fold. The “open-door” policy is now a thing of the past. Instead, the Indira Congress has announced its decision to go in for selective admissions. “If this is not asking one to surrender, what else is it?” asked another Congress leader.

In their resolve to stay separate, top Congress leaders have also gone by the advice of a veteran of many political battles — and victories. Some three months ago he visited New Delhi from his place of retirement and intellectual pursuit and advised his colleagues in so many words: “Indira Congress will become Sanjay Congress in three years from now. You friends will have no place in it. Why then allow Mrs Gandhi to exploit you once again? Instead, keep your identity and fight for principles.” Significantly, his assessment was based on a talk with Mrs Gandhi some ten months earlier. He then told Mrs Gandhi: “The people still have regard for you. But they will not tolerate Sanjay. My advice, therefore, is: Make a public declaration that you have advised Sanjay to withdraw from politics and you will not either help or encourage him.” Mrs Gandhi, according to this veteran, replied after a brief pause: “I don’t know why people are against Sanjay. What has he done…”

The “open-door” policy is now a thing of the past. Instead, the Indira Congress has announced its decision to go in for selective admissions. “If this is not asking one to surrender, what else is it?” asked another Congress leader.

Happily for Mr Swaran Singh, Mr Chavan and Mr Reddi the morale of their party is not as low as is widely made out to be. In fact, Mr Swaran Singh has decided to continue as President only as part of the collective decision not to do anything which may in any way cause demoralisation. During his absence abroad, Mr Chavan will look after the work of the President. In fact, Mr Chavan is now busy travelling around and recently visited Assam and Orissa where he found Congressmen like Mr Sarat Sinha and many others standing rock-like on the decision to keep the “real Congress going”. Earlier, Mr Chavan visited Kerala and was happy to find the States Chief Minister, Mr Antony, and other Congressmen, including Mr Vylar Ravi and Mr K.P. Unnikrishnan, both MPs, solidly with him. Mr Chavan is now hoping that together with like-minded partymen they can hold their AICC meeting or national convention on May 14 and 15 and do two things. Reassert their separate democratic identity; and put forward a clear-cut programme before the nation.

Unlike in the South, the Congress Party proposes not to be on the defensive and gracefully admit its Himalayan blunder in supporting Mrs Gandhi and her authoritarian rule. A few leaders are even talking in terms of some demonstration of praischit (atonement) for their sins of omission and commission.

For the present, attention is being directed to the forthcoming poll battle in Azamgarh where Mr Chandrajit Yadav is contesting the by-election to the Lok Sabha against a former supporter, Mr Ram Bachan Yadav, now contesting on the Janata ticket, and an erstwhile colleague, Mrs Mohsina Kidwai, nominee of the Indira Congress. (In 1967, Mr Ram Bachan Yadav had reportedly met some members of the Congress Central Parliamentary Board to plead for a Lok Sabha ticket for Mr Chandrajit Yadav.) Unlike in the South, the Congress Party proposes not to be on the defensive and gracefully admit its Himalayan blunder in supporting Mrs Gandhi and her authoritarian rule. A few leaders are even talking in terms of some demonstration of praischit (atonement) for their sins of omission and commission. Azamgarh, it is realised, offers the party both a challenge and an opportunity. Time and patience, its leaders claim, are on their side.— INFA