The first statement that the cabinet ministers and some chief ministers issued from Delhi on the Supreme Court’s decision came in record time. Its cyclostyled copy was available informally from the government’s Press Information Bureau within an hour of the Supreme Court verdict. By then, news agencies had not even finished creeding the full text of Justice Krishna Iyer’s 23-page order.
The only inference one can draw from this is that the leaders in the government had made up their minds even before the court’s judgement was out. The statement was ready or nearly ready. This is confirmed by the way the conditional stay has been twisted to mean the vindication of the Congress party’s stand that Indira Gandhi can continue as the Prime Minister and that there was no impediment in the way. (The decision was to take a positive line and the government information media were instructed accordingly.) One wonders what more the cabinet ministers and other supporters of Mrs Gandhi could have said if the stay had been unconditional.
Shorn of propaganda, the stay given by Justice Iyer is not absolute. For, it does not allow Mrs Gandhi either to vote or draw allowances. This is what judges have done in similar cases earlier. Under the law, Justice Iyer could go only thus far. As he himself said, the office of Prime Minister and its functioning were regulated by a separate set of articles of the Constitution.
Now it is left to Mrs Gandhi to decide whether she should continue in office in the face of the conditional stay. Her own counsel, Nani Palkhivala, has said in his arguments before Justice Iyer that there would be “irreparable damage” to the institution of Prime Minister if unconditional stay was not granted. A conditional stay is a cloud which is bound to cast its shadow on the office. It is a disability with which Mrs Gandhi will have to live. It may not physically come in the way of functioning, but it can eat one up within. It is not so much a matter of level disability as one of conscience. The fact that she has not given her mind encourages the hope that she may still be weighing the issues.
Some Congressmen have introduced a new element. It concerns the party strength in the Lok Sabha. True, the loss of Mrs Gandhi’s vote does not make any difference and it does not matter whether the party has 350 or 349 members in the Lok Sabha. But the matter transcends numbers. It relates to the stature and moral authority of the Prime Minister who cannot vote in the Lok Sabha, but will continue to be its leader. This is an anomalous situation which will get murkier as the days go by. The effect will be felt all along in the administration. At the same time, the cleavage in the country will grow.
But somehow most Congress leaders seem to be convinced that the blot of conditional stay will be washed away by orchestrated demonstrations in Mrs Gandhi’s support. They have plans to refurbish her image by going back to the 1969-brand slogans and by indulging in the same old populism. They, however, forget that the mood of the country is now different. Mrs Gandhi’s own credibility is low. Many people believe that radicalism is the creed which she espouses when she is in a difficulty.
They ask for her achievements since 1966 when she became Prime Minister. The Bangladesh liberation, however commendable, has not improved the common man’s lot. People know too well that the value of the rupee has gone down by 34 percent in the last two years alone and the poverty line has dipped still lower to cover 10 percent more of the population. This means the very poor are now 50 percent as against 40 percent a year ago.
The Congress chief ministers, who assembled in Delhi to ensure that the party’s MPs in their states vote for Mrs Gandhi, have agreed to “radical land reforms”, the “cancellation” of rural indebtedness and so on. But, by now, they as well as the people know that all that is promised is not meant to be implemented.
People have experienced again and again the fact that a party which depends on the landed aristocracy to “catch” votes and collect funds for elections only talks of progressive steps. The World Bank, in its latest report, has once again pointed out that land reforms have remained mainly on paper. And it is an open secret that every economic policy or decision has a price tag.
Therefore, the “progressive” stance will neither help Mrs Gandhi and other Congress leaders to divert the attention of people nor water down the odium of the conditional stay. In fact, the populist demonstrations may lead to violent clashes, particularly when the opposition prepares a countrywide agitation.
It is quite possible that a harassed and irritated government may adopt more authoritarian measures to suppress the opposition point of view. The opposition is not all that restrained or pure. The danger is that a battle which should be fought within the precincts of the law courts may go to the streets. In that atmosphere, how would be it possible for the Supreme Court, or any court, to decide things coolly and dispassionately and give the verdict when it meets on July 14 and later?
If Mrs Gandhi could only step down till the Supreme Court gave its judgement, which might be available by the end of August. At present, it appears that there are great risks in her doing so because an interim successor can take steps to perpetuate himself. But Mrs Gandhi’s advantage is that her equation with the masses is still larger than that of any other Congress leader. In this election year, Congressmen will need her all the more.
By stepping down now, she will give a lie to the propaganda that she wants to stay in power at any cost. She will also save the nation from an endless controversy. And when she comes back after an exoneration, she will be the entire country’s leader, not of the Congress alone.
Kuldip Nayar | Journalist, parliamentarian and diplomat who passed away in 2018
(From our archives)