By Inder Jit
(Released on 23 June 1981)
The Opposition has none but itself to blame for coming to grief once again. It seems to have learnt nothing and unlearnt nothing from its bitter experience. The final results of the recent by-elections show that the Opposition parties could have done a lot better if only these had come to some understanding between themselves. In UP alone, the Opposition together polled more votes than the Congress (I) in three Lok Sabha seats: Allahabad, Bareilly and Mirzapur. But it had lost the battle even before the first shot was fired. Mrs. Gandhi need not have taken the trouble she took to campaign for her party candidates. But as India’s shrewdest politician she understood the importance of the by-elections and went all out to win them. Psychologically, triumph at the polls was vital for her. Prices have spurted all round since she returned to power. Law and order situation has deteriorated. Unemployment has continued to mount. It was, therefore, imperative for her to prove that the people still have faith in her. And, there is no viable alternative to the Congress (I) yet.
The Opposition’s latest poll debacle has brought together the leaders of the Lok Dal, Congress (U), Bharatiya Janata Party and Janata Party — at least in issuing a joint statement. Mr. Charan Singh, Mr. Devaraj Urs, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr. Madhu Dandwate have asserted that “the age of free democratic elections is over” and it was time for all those committed to the democratic process to sit up and take serious note. “Unlimited and unimaginable amounts of money,” according to them, had been distributed in the by-elections which were also marked by “blatant misuse of government machinery and police, wholesale rigging, booth capturing and unabashed violence.” Further, for the first time in free India, the Prime Minister had canvassed in the by-elections, broken a convention and “intimidated” the electorate. All in all, the Congress (I) had “gone to any extent” to ensure its victory and thereby sown the “seeds of anarchy” and made a “mockery of parliamentary democracy.”
The charges are grave and unprecedented. Significantly, the CPI General Secretary, Mr. Rajeswara Rao, too, has accused the Congress (I) of “blatant misuse of official machinery, violation of all democratic norms and values, use of money power and goondaism.” Many of these charges will require to be checked for veracity. One thing alone is established. Mrs. Gandhi violated what she herself described as a convention by campaigning in the by-elections. Some apologists for the ruling party have argued that it was not realistic to expect the Congress (I) to go to the polls without its star vote-catcher canvassing for votes. Yet, the fact remains that the Prime Minister’s campaign at a time when the Congress (I) is enjoying a big majority at the Centre and in UP and elsewhere amounted to telling the voters: Vote for the Congress (I) or else. The convention ensures what the Constitution provides: a poll which is not only free and fair but also without fear! Nehru upheld it boldly and refrained from campaigning, for instance, in the Lok Sabha by-elections from Amroha, Kannauj and Rajkot in 1963 even though he wanted to keep Acharya Kripalani, Dr. Lohia and Mr. Masani out.
Nevertheless, a question that needs to be put to Mr. Charan Singh, Mr. Urs, Mr. Vajpayee, Mr. Dandwate and Mr. Rajeswara Rao and their parties is: why could they not see what was possibly coming and take appropriate, advance measures to prevent blatant misuse of machinery and much else that is alleged? Why could they not act in time — and why must they only react? The post-event statements of the five leaders appear to have been issued mainly on the basis of many grave allegations made by Mr. H.N. Bahuguna in regard to the by-election in Pauri-Garhwal. Yet one fact stands out. Mr. Bahuguna had warned the country days before the poll of what might happen in his constituency. Sadly enough, no one took any serious notice of these warnings — notice which could surely have been taken by the Opposition parties singly or unitedly irrespective of their personal attitude towards the controversial Mr. Bahuguna.
What could the Opposition have done? The answer is not far to seek, as shown by a pre-poll consensus among some thinking people anxious to strengthen our young democracy. The Opposition, it was agreed, could have responded meaningfully to Mr. Bahuguna’s virtual S.O.S. by dispatching a top-level team of observers representing various parties to see things for themselves in Pauri-Garhwal prior to the polling and on the poll day itself. In addition, the parties could have associated with such a team non-party and non-power seeking organizations such as Citizens for Democracy, Voters’ Council, Gandhi Peace Foundation and Lok Sevak Sangh. The other words, the principal Opposition parties now wailing over the alleged happenings in Pauri-Garhwal could have ensured that the vote was free and fair irrespective of their attitude towards Mr. Bahuguna. It was clearly for these proclaimed democrats to show what they stood for: an equal chance at the polls to even one’s worst opponent.
The Opposition’s characteristic failure to respond in time to the developing situation in Pauri-Garhwal goes to the heart of the matter. (Mr. Bahuguna’s statements and the alleged threat to his life are only one part of the story. Pauri-Garhwal witnessed before the poll an incredible star-spangled show by the Congress (I): Six State Chief Ministers and two score and more of other Ministers were campaigning at one time in addition to Mrs. Gandhi). The Opposition must realize that its approach to the public, by and large, leaves a great deal to be desired. First things are not being tackled first. The Opposition today lacks the people’s confidence as never before. In 1977, the common man asserted his power and gave the Opposition a chance to prove its mettle. But this opportunity was recklessly thrown away. Worse, the lesson of 1980 has not been learnt. Its leaders have done little to rebuild their credibility and show they are now putting the country before self.
Annual party sessions, occasional public meetings and press conferences have their importance. Unfortunately, however, most Opposition leaders, like those of the Government, often read more into the crowds at their meetings than is justified. The common man turns up at these meetings mainly to give himself a break from his normal dreary existence. The public meeting is for him essentially in the nature of a mela or a tamasha, depending upon the weather and his mood — and no index of his commitment. (A veteran recalls Nehru once asking Bakshi Ghulam Mohd about his following in Kashmir. Pat came the reply: “25 lakhs.” Nehru “What about Sheikh Sahib?” The Bakshi replied “25 lakhs.” Puzzled, Nehru remarked: “I don’t understand.” The Bakshi replied: “Our people flock to listen to whosoever is on the platform!”) A question which thus arises is: Is the Opposition doing enough to build its credibility and offer itself as a viable alternative to the Congress (I)?
The answer on both scores is regrettably a big “no”. True, the Opposition leaders swear by various democratic norms and ideals. However, they seldom follow up their proclaimed commitments through convincing deeds, as shown, for instance, by the case of the CPM Ministries in West Bengal and Kerala. As everyone knows, the Jyoti and the Nayanar Ministries are under attack. New Delhi could, if it so willed, carry out the threat held out by some Central ministers on visits to Calcutta and Trivandrum and topple the two Governments. But the Opposition leaders, barring an exception or two, have done little to stand up for the basic principles that must guide Centre-State relations —— and make it clear that they would oppose tooth and nail any unconstitutional attempt to cut short a lawfully elected Government. The Opposition parties may have their differences with the CPM. But these could be agitated separately. The important thing for the Opposition is to carry conviction among the masses that it means what it says and, if necessary, is even willing to shed blood for the other man’s right to disagree.
The Opposition parties could easily take a leaf out of the British book once again and prove that it means business as shown by its newly formed Socialist Democratic Party. Although born yesterday, the SDP has decided to put up one of its leading lights from Warrington in a bye-election to the Commons on July 16. The constituency is known to be a Labour stronghold and, according to Mrs. Shirley Williams, it would be “a miracle if the SDP wins.” Nevertheless the party has put up the well-known Mr. Roy Jenkins for the poll to prove, according to the London Times, “the seriousness of its challenge to the Labour and the Conservative parties.” Adds the Times: And, Mr. Jenkins took no persuading that the honour of appearing as the first standard-bearer properly fell to him.” Mr. Jenkins, for his part, underlined the importance of the fight when he said: “our sights as a party are very high. We want to show a way out from the old debilitating politics of outdated dogmatism, remote from the thoughts of ordinary people and encouragement of false class confrontation which have bedeviled this country”.
In sharp contrast, the Opposition in India is not only failing itself but also the country. Like the SDP in the UK, it should have moved heaven and earth to put up prestige fights at least in some seats to carry conviction among the people about their serious intent to challenge the Congress (I). The BJP, which seems to be viewed as an emerging alternative, could have surely come forward with some top-level candidates just to register a point, even if the other parties were unwilling to oblige. The Janata, too, has allowed its case to go by default. But all this need not cause despair. As the saying goes, there is always another day. The Metropolitan Council elections in Delhi, which are already overdue, offer another opportunity to the Opposition. Again, the Opposition parties could come together in Parliament and help restore their credibility through coordinated functioning on major issues. In the final analysis, there is a crying need today for an Opposition which not only stands for parliamentary democracy but also an Opposition that works. — INFA