Through Foreign Eyes
By Inder Jit
(Released on 11 January 1978)
Global interest in India has revived actively and the world community is once again following developments in our country closely and sympathetically. This is the dominant impression of my three-month stay in the United States as a member of the Indian delegation to the 32nd session of the U.N. General Assembly. Friends raised toasts to India and her “great people” for the “March miracle”, as some prefer to call the revolution, and our country’s image received its biggest ever boost since independence. Almost all members of the United Nations, especially those from the third world countries, were happy to see the world’s largest democracy reaffirm its faith in a free society and defeat the forces of tyranny and dictatorship in a magnificent assertion of the indomitable human spirit.
Following the Chinese debacle of 1962, India adopted a low profile at the U.N. This posture continued right through and became even lower when the Emergency was proclaimed and basic human freedoms were extinguished. (“Not lower profile, but flat”, asserted a top diplomat). Happily, the Janata Government decided that India must again play its due role in the world forums. The decision evoked a positive response and India’s voice was again heard at the U.N. with interest and respect. This was reflected as much in the appreciation of Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee’s powerful speech in Hindi at its eloquent best (the speech was simultaneously translated into English and other recognized language) as in the key role India and its Ambassador at the U.N., Mr. Rikhi Jaipal, was able to play in getting the Security Council to decide unanimously on a Mandatory Arms Embargo against South Africa.
The part that India played at the U.N. is not generally known. For one thing, it was the Indian draft resolution which was finally adopted by the Security Council. For the other, India was able to make a little-known but significant dent in the Western position regarding mandatory economic sanctions against the barbaric Vorster regime. India was among the 28 countries that co-sponsored a resolution demanding such sanctions against South Africa. When the resolution was vetoed, India proposed during the informal consultations that the Western trading partners of South Africa should review their economic relations with it in anticipation of economic sanctions which alone would hurt. Britain and France have a veto, opposed it vigorously. But the US welcomed the Indian initiative.
India’s image was further enhanced by the manner in which the delegation vigorously pursued (notwithstanding various shortcomings and difficulties) a policy of genuine non-alignment, judging each issue strictly on merit and in accordance with the U.N. Charter. In the final analysis, however, the best of words can neither break bones and regimes nor produce progress and prosperity. Attention was directed by friends to basic issues of today and tomorrow, even as they applauded the revolution of yesterday. Concern was prompted time and again by disturbing Press reports from India. Doubts were raised not only about the future of the Janata Government, which was almost invariably described as a coalition government, but also about its ability to tackle the grave economic issues and fundamental problems posed by the population explosion.
Some knowledgeable friends agitatedly voiced concern over what was described as the Janata Government’s “softness and its ability to govern firmly”. More specifically, they expressed disappointment over the failure of New Delhi to “punish” Mrs. Gandhi promptly and adequately for threatening the values for which so many had lived and died. Symbolic of the reaction was the angry comment of a leading American, known for his great love for India and his active interest in its well-being, following Mrs. Gandhi’s arrest on charges of corruption and her sensational release the following day. Said he, “What the hell is happening? Mrs. Gandhi commits monstrous crimes against democracy. Imposes dictatorship. Seeks to establish dynastic rule. And, all that your government does is to give her a parking ticket! Even there it bungles. Really!!”
Friends raised toasts to India and her “great people” for the “March miracle”, as some prefer to call the revolution, and our country’s image received its biggest ever boost since independence. Almost all members of the United Nations, especially those from the third world countries, were happy to see the world’s largest democracy reaffirm its faith in a free society and defeat the forces of tyranny and dictatorship in a magnificent assertion of the indomitable human spirit.
Everyone I talked to in New York and Washington was crystal clear on two points. First, political crimes must not unpunished. Second, the punishment must be swift and such as to provide an effective deterrent for others. The Janata Government’s attempts to arraign Mrs. Gandhi on charges of corruption, therefore, made little sense to them. “Billions, let alone millions of dollars which she and her son might have collected”, said one informed observer, “are nothing compared to what she did and tried to do.” To them, her crime was already established in the manner in which she proclaimed the Emergency. (“The word for me all along was dictatorship, not Emergency,” said a top American Editor.) Another informed observer queried. “Is it not a fact that she subverted the Constitution by getting the then President, the late Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, to proclaim the Emergency without the consent of her Council of Ministers?”
Arguments advanced in defence of Mrs. Gandhi failed to cut any ice. Mrs. Gandhi, it has been argued by her supporters, was within her right under the rules of Government business to act on her own so long as the Council of Ministers endorsed her decision post-facto. But it was pointed out that Government rules for routine business could not possibly be applied to a matter as grave as the proclamation of Emergency unless the Prime Minister was accepted as an “all-powerful, elected monarch.” In calculatedly side-tracking her Council of Ministers,” Mrs. Gandhi had committed “a grave constitutional impropriety.” Observers were agreed that the then President, the late Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, too had committed “a grave constitutional impropriety” in acting merely on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is essentially the first among equals. However, the prime responsibility in the matter was that of the Prime Minister as the person initiating action.
Of interest in this context is some inside information I got unexpectedly in New York regarding the requirement for the President scrupulously to act only on the advice of his Council of Ministers. On October 2, 1970, a UP Ministry headed by Mr. Charan Singh, now Union Home Minister, was dismissed by a Presidential Order signed by the then President, Mr. V.V. Giri, at Kiev while on a visit to the Soviet Union. High drama preceded and followed the signing of the order by Mr. Giri on foreign soil. For the first time, a national political party demanded the impeachment of the President and even circulated a formal resolution on the subject. What was not known, however, was that Mr. Giri upheld at that time a basic aspect of the Constitution. He insisted on first seeing a resolution of the Council of Ministers before signing the order. The resolution was thereupon flown to Kiev by a special messenger and the signing delayed by more than a day.
Happily, the Janata Government decided that India must again play its due role in the world forums. The decision evoked a positive response and India’s voice was again heard at the U.N. with interest and respect. This was reflected as much in the appreciation of Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee’s powerful speech in Hindi at its eloquent best.
India’s friends in the United States and among the diplomats at the United Nations would have liked to see Mrs. Gandhi sincerely own up her Himalayan blunder, accept the electoral punishment gracefully and genuinely retire from active public life in penance in the best democratic tradition. Since she has adamantly refused to do so, they asked “Why can’t your Parliament impeach her — and punish her.” My answer that there was no provision for impeachment of a Prime Minister in the Constitution left them surprised but not silenced. “Clearly,” said one friend over coffee in the UN delegates’ lounge, “your great leaders and the founding fathers of the Constitution never thought any Prime Minister would stoop so low for personal and family ends. However, isn’t your Parliament sovereign? Surely, it can impeach and punish a Prime Minister”. A legal luminary of world repute made the same point later and said, “She could at least be disenfranchised under the Constitution.”
Everyone I talked to in New York and Washington was crystal clear on two points. First, political crimes must not unpunished. Second, the punishment must be swift and such as to provide an effective deterrent for others.
What he suggested was of immense interest and makes sense in the context of what I have seen of the political scene on return and Mrs. Gandhi’s latest skullduggery. Mrs. Gandhi capriciously committed crimes against democracy only to save her Prime Ministership and escape the six-year disqualification. Perhaps, Parliament could now follow up Mr. H.V. Kamath’s historic resolution denouncing the Emergency and as a further step punish Mrs. Gandhi by suspending her citizenship and disenfranchising her under the powers available to it in the Constitution. At any rate, it is not unusual for Parliament and political institutions to punish erring members by suspending their membership rights. In the case of Mrs. Gandhi, she continues to lay store by extra-constitutional methods, as reflected in her moves leading to the Congress split. She appears to have learnt or unlearnt nothing and, as the legal luminary in New York cautioned, seems “hell-bent on creating chaos and confusion.” — INFA