THE INDIAN SCENE
PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA
The
outstanding events in the quarter January-March 1971 in our national affairs are the mid-term elections
to the Lok Sabha and to the State Vidhan Assemblies in Tamil Nadu, Orissa and
West Bengal and the reactions in the country to the independence movement in
East Pakistan. Both are events of the greatest significance and it is of
importance that we should know why they are so, what their outcome is likely to
be and what new problems they are likely to create.
Mid-term
Elections
In
understanding the significance of the mid-term elections especially to the Lok
Sabha it is necessary to keep in mind how from 1967 onwards there has been a sort
of political set-back in the country; though in a sense the set-back began even
much earlier from the time of the Chinese aggression in 1962. Both in the
country as well as abroad there were grave misgivings about the future of
Indian democracy and the prospects of peaceful change. Fears also were entertained
as to whether the country’s integrity and unity could be maintained.
As
a result of the fourth general elections held in 1967 the Congress party–the
only well-organised all-India party–was returned with only a small majority to
the Lok Sabha. It Won 279 seats in a House of 515. It had a strength of 375 in
1957 and of 358 in 1962. Its further decline in strength in 1967 was naturally
understood as a clear proof of a progressive loss of confidence of the
electorate in its capacity to rule the country effectively. It came to be
considered by the thinking section of the public as having lost all its
dynamism and as having become a party of the status quo. The situation
became worse in several States where it lost its majority. Even where it was
returned as the single largest party, several members defected to other
parties. The result was the formation of coalition governments which remained
in power-except in Orissa–only for short periods. Governmental instability
interspersed by President’s rule and mid-term elections became inevitable. The
political situation worsened. State ministries had to think constantly of how
to retain their power. They had no time to think of policy-making which was
their main function. With a civil service not known for a high standard of efficiency
administration came to a stand still.
Then
came the Congress split in 1969. The Union Government under the leadership of
Indira Gandhi lost its majority and became the Government of a minority party.
It had to depend for its very existence on other parties like the C.P.I., the
Muslim League, and the D.M.K. This deprived it of the capacity to take an
effective line of action on any matter of domestic or external affairs. People
lost faith in the legitimacy of the democratic processes and resorted increasingly
to violent direct action to bring pressure on Government to achieve their
objectives. Law and order ceased to exist not only in West Bengal where the
Naxalites and the other parties wedded to violence were growing in strength but
also in most other parts of the country. In Federal-State relations the Union
Government lost the capacity to bargain and was compelled to yield more and
more to the threats of State Governments which demanded more and more autonomy.
Corruption was on the increase. With the growth of defections political
morality reached the lowest level. In the U. N. O. and other international
forums very few cared to pay heed to India’s voice. It was feared that in the
next general election no party would be returned in a majority and that
coalition and unstable governments would become the rule at the Centre also and
that this would inevitably lead to the erosion of the democratic system, to the
setting up of some sort of military rule and even to the Balkanization of the
country. There were many–and some of them were retired Chiefs of staff in the
army–who openly advocated a military take over at least for a temporary period.
Many
among the foreign political analysts–and they had several disciples in India–always
believed that democracy which was a product of the special historical
conditions and culture of the West could never thrive in countries of Asia and
Africa and they found support for their beliefs in the situation as it came to
develop in India. It was against all this background that the mid-term election
of 1971 was held and all this has to be kept in mind in evaluating its
significance.
Its
immediate significance consists in the formation of a strong, stable and
one-party Government at the Centre and that under the dynamic leadership of
Indira Gandhi who has earned the well-deserved reputation of being a
states-woman determined on following radical policies and capable of taking
quick decisions. The dangers of a coalition Government at the Centre–which
would be more serious than those at the State level–have been averted. The
eclipse of the Congress supremacy and of one-party domination has been proved
to be only temporary. Indira Gandhi’s Government has, as a result of the,
election, secured a majority of 350 in a House of 5l5–a more than two-thirds
majority–which will enable her even to amend the Constitution; if she considers
it to be absolutely necessary for implementing her radical and far-reaching
socialistic policies and programmes. Political and governmental stability is a
gain of the highest value.
The
election has also a long-period significance. It has restored faith in
democratic values and this is good not only for India but also for the other
countries in the third world. It has proved that the electorate in India has,
in spite of its illiteracy and attachment to tradition, sufficient maturity to
appreciate what is good for the country as a whole, to rise above the narrow
loyalties of caste, language and region and to vote with a sense of
discrimination. It has demonstrated that democracy is a plant which can thrive
not merely in the Western but also in other soils. With 600 millions of people
in an Asian country wedded to democracy the future of democracy may be asserted
to be quite safe.
The
election has also been hailed, and rightly also, as the inaugurator of a real
revolution in the history of free India. The Congress under the leadership of
Indira Gandhi has ceased to be the party of status quo. It now stands
for great changes in the country’s economic and social system. Its manifesto as
well as the President’s address to the joint session of the two Houses of
Parliament after the election, the speech of the Finance Minister, Y. B.
Chavan, while introducing the interim budget in the new Lok Sabha and the Prime
Minister’s reply to the debate on the President’s address afford evidence of
the determination of Government to implement programmes aimed at a more
quickened pace of economic growth than the present 5.5 per cent of annual
growth, the eradication of poverty, the removal of disparities between the rich
and the poor, the provision of employment for the million, are unemployed
today, the arrest of the increasing rise in prices and the speedy
implementation of land reforms. Cynics may argue that all these have formed
part of the programme of the party since 1952 and that there is nothing
revolutionary in the party leaders including them in their programmes today.
This is, however, an incorrect reading of the present situation. The party and
especially its leader Indira Gandhi have realised that the people cannot be fed
on mere slogans and promises, that they want rapid action by those in power and
that if the promises are not fulfilled the electorate will disown them. The new
generation is more sophisticated–and perhaps even more impatient–than the old
one and in 1976, and perhaps even earlier, it is sure to judge the party’s
claims to power and office more by what it performs than by what it promises.
Political
analysts have been trying to answer the question of what contributed to the
victory of Indira Gandhi. It was really her victory and not so much of the
Congress party. The battle was between her on one side and the so-called
democratic alliance of the four parties-the Congress (0), the Jan Sangh, the
Swatantra and the S.S.P.–and it was an unequal battle. She had been preparing
for it for nearly two years. During this period she built for herself the image
of an all-India leader both by word and deed. She always reminded the people
that she stood for socialism, for the weak, the poor and the downtrodden and
she convinced the weaker sections of her sincerity when she nationalised the
banks, called on the bank custodians to supply credit to those who were not
considered credit-worthy by the Institutions wedded to tradition–to
rickshawallas, taxi-drivers, small farmers and self-employed craftsmen and
shop-keepers. The ordinance de-recognising the Princes created a similar
impression on the minds of the masses who constituted her real clientele as
distinguished from the classes. It was also during these years that she spoke
of communalism and casteism and made bitter attacks on Jan Sangh and the R.S.S.
This enabled her to win the confidence of the Muslims and the Harijans–the
communities which became alienated from the Congress party in 1962 and much
more in the 1967 election. All this was really a part of her election campaign
on which she started not after the Lok Sabha was dissolved in the last week of
December 1970 but two years earlier. The result was that when the electoral
battle began in January 1971 she was the only all-India leader with a
ready-made strategy and tactics to win it.
The
alliance parties had very little of mass contact. The Jan Sangh was the only
party in it that tried to create a mass base for itself. There were acute
ideological differences among them–so acute that they could not even think of a
common manifesto. They could not agree on a common leader. Even in the matter
of setting up common candidates there was no complete agreement among them and
in several constituencies they fought against each other. They approached the
electorate with only one slogan, the slogan Gandhi Hatao and this had no
appeal to the masses. They accused her of being in alliance with communists,
communalists and regionalists like the C.P.I., the Muslim League and the
D.M.K., but this fell on deaf ears as she fought the election battle without
entering into any alliance with these parties except in certain areas. She, of
course, had more financial resources at her disposal; she could use Government
aircraft and other kinds of governmental machinery in carrying on her
electioneering. All these were factors in her favour but more than any of
these, it was her popularity that was her greatest asset. Even the conservatives
and the intellectuals who did not usually participate in elections voted for
her because they realised that what the country needed was a stable Government,
that she and her party alone could provide it and that if the alliance won the
battle, unstable coalition government would plague the country.
In
all elections several irrational factors also influence the behaviour of
voters. This was pointed out long ago by that well-known political
psychologist, Graham Wallas. In our mid-term election the symbol of the cow and
the calf chosen shrewdly and cleverly by Indira Gandhi’s party was one such
factor especially in the rural areas. A large section of women voters who knew
very little of politics voluntarily came to the polling booths to see that a
woman became the Prime Minister of the country. They said, “For ages men ruled
over the land. They never gave an opportunity for a woman, however talented, to
rule. Why should men’s
rule be perpetuated? Indira Gandhi must become our Prime Minister. We will all
vote for her.” The solid vote of women contributed substantially to Congress
being returned with a majority least
expected and surprising even to the leaders of the party.
There
are some who refer to the election of 1971 being less fair and less free than
the previous elections and draw the conclusion that this also contributed to
the victory of the Congress. There is some truth in their contention that there
was more violence–even more political murders–in this than in previous
elections, that there was more intimidation of voters, that even the polling
officers were subject to intimidation and threats, that the electoral rolls
were purposely tampered with, that bribery was resorted to on a large scale,
and that money and wine flowed like water. Allegations like these have been
made and they have been proved to be true in at least some cases. All this
should cause profound regret and it should be the duty of the Election
Commission to see that such malpractices do not recur. But it does not appear
that these were the causes that contributed to the victory of the Congress.
Their influence was only marginal.
Every
well-wisher of the country should welcome the outcome of the mid-term election.
It has given political stability to the country. It has given opportunity for
the Government to bring about even the most radical kind of changes in a
peaceful way. The installation of a stable Government has enhanced the prestige
of the country in all international forums and even the great powers are now in
a mood to pay greater heed to the views of India in world affairs however
unpalatable they may be. It has also been pointed out that because of the weakness
of the opposition it will not be in a position to defy the Chair as it often
did in the previous Parliament, that the Speaker would be able to enforce
discipline with greater effect, and that the proceedings will be more orderly.
All this will strengthen the democratic forces in the country. The election has
also brought to the Lok Sabha a large number of younger people who have new
ideas and who can strengthen the hands of the Prime Minister in all the
progressive policies she may happen to pursue.
Before
we conclude this part of our survey it may not be inappropriate to refer to one
or two results which are not quite welcome. One is the total eclipse of the
opposition in Lok Sabha. It has only a strength of 165 in a House of 515.
Besides this it is not united but divided into numerous groups–C.P.M. (25),
C.P.I. (23), D.M.K. (23), Jan Sangh (22), Old Congress (16) and others (56).
There is very little in common among them and they cannot serve as an effective
check on Government. A strong opposition is as necessary in a democracy as a
strong party in power. Its absence in the Lok Sabha may lead to some kind of
authoritarianism and even of the dictatorship of the Prime Minister. It is also
unfortunate that in this election stalwarts like Masani, Ranga, Madhu Limaye,
George Fernandes, S. K. Patil, Sucheta Kripalani and Ram Subagh Singh got
defeated. Their presence would certainly have been an asset to the Lok Sabha on
any account.
A
second unhealthy outcome is the growth in the number of defectors from the
various parties in the legislatures of States like Mysore, Gujarat and U.P., to
the ruling Congress party, and the consequent fall of ministries in them. They
try to defend their unprincipled and unscrupulous conduct by the curious and
unsound argument that as the Lok Sabha elections had shown that the people have
confidence only in Indira Gandhi and the Congress (R) they are following the
popular verdict through defections. This argument has no sense. If it is
accepted, there will be no need for elections to the State assemblies at all.
The country may rest satisfied with elections to Lok Sabha and determine the
composition of the State assemblies on the basis of such elections. It also
implies that the great weight attached by Indira Gandhi to the de-linking of
elections to Lok Sabha from those to State assemblies and the need to give to
the electorate an opportunity to think of national issues as different from
State issues has no meaning. It is a matter of regret that Indira Gandhi has
welcomed the defectors into her fold forgetting that their real motive is to
get Congress (R) tickets in the ensuing elections in States. It will be
impossible for her to implement her policies as long as there are such
unreliable people in her party. It is time that she realises that it is the
presence in the Congress party of landlords who do not really believe in socialism
or land reforms that has stood in the way of the land reforms being
implemented. It is they who also stand in the way of the taxation of
agricultural incomes so necessary if capital resources are to be mobilised.
What she and the country need is a well-knit Congress party consisting of
members with real faith in socialism and not of persons who indulge in
defections and in sabotage.
It
is also necessary to point out one other anamoly arising out of the present
system of single member constituencies where a candidate getting the largest
number of votes–not the majority of votes polled–is declared elected. The
anamoly consists in the wide disparity between the total number of votes
secured by a party in the country and the number of seats in the legislature
which it secures. Of the 151 million votes cast by the present electorate of
272 millions, the Congress (R) polled 63 million votes (43 per cent) and won
350 seats (68 per cent). The Congress (O) polled 15 million votes (10.5 per
cent) but captured only 16 seats (3.01 per cent). The Jan Sangh which polled
10.7 million votes (7.3 per cent)
secured 22 seats (4.2 per cent.). The C.P.M. which just polled 7.3
million votes (5.1. per cent) got off with 25 seats (4.8 per cent). The S. S.
P. which polled 3.5 million votes got only three seats while the P.S.P. won two
with its 1.4 million votes. The Swatantra party did better. It got eight seats
with its 3.5 million votes. The Congress (O) suffered its worst in Tamil Nadu
where it polled 4.8 million votes and got only one seat, that of Kamaraj Nadar,
while the D.M.K. polled 5.6 million votes and got 23 seats. These figures are
highly revealing. They show how much support each party has in the electorate.
All this strengthens the case for a system of proportional representation.
Independence
Movement in East Pakistan
There
is no space here to deal elaborately with the Indian response to the freedom
movement in East Pakistan. It is gratifying to note that the movement has been
universally welcomed and that both houses of Parliament passed unanimously a
resolution extending to the movement the sympathy and the support of all
sections of the people. Similar resolutions were passed in several State
assemblies. Organisations have also been started to collect funds for helping
the freedom fighters in every possible way. Government has also been busy in
persuading the U.N.O. authorities and States, great and small, to use their
good offices to put an end to the genocide indulged in by the military forces
in East Pakistan. There is already a favourable response to this move from
U.S.S.R. What is absolutely necessary is that our Government should be prepared
to keep in its hands the initiative in all matters relating to the freedom
movement. Our future is closely bound up with the success of this movement and
our interests in it are far greater than those of any other country.
Several
sections of the public are pressing the Government of Indira Gandhi to give
recognition to the free Government of Bangla Desh. The arguments they have put
forward in favour of the demand are convincing. Government, however, is not
prepared to take such a step immediately. It has to be far more cautious than
the non-official public but it should realise at the same time that
over-caution in a matter like this will prove harmful. We will lose the
goodwill of the people of Bangla Desh and delay and cautiousness will not bring
to us the goodwill of the Government of West Pakistan. The wisest course for
our Government to adopt is to recognise Bangla Desh as an independent,
sovereign, democratic Republic the moment the freedom fighters establish a
provisional Government with some territory under their control. Meanwhile it
should be ready to give protection to any freedom fighters who may take refuge
in Indian territory and aid them with arms and ammunition. Let us remember in
this connection that for years Pakistan has been extending such aid and
protection to the rebels in Nagaland and in Mizo Hills. Government should not
also be influenced by the view that an independent Bangla Desh will encourage a
movement for an independent West Bengal.
April 7, 1971