The eighty-fifth birth anniversary of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sparked off some reminiscences about one of the most towering personalities in independent India. Mrs. Gandhi was the product, rather than presiding deity, of a momentous transition in the life of the nation. Her tenure was dogged by forces that were powerful but still in the process of crystallization. It is thus surprising to find that even hindsight has not produced a meaningful evaluation of her role at a momentous crossroads. As in life, so in death, Indira Gandhi has elicited comment around her personality rather than the social, economic and political issues that dominated the public arena during her tenure.
This is a pity, as a dispassionate analysis of that era could throw valuable insights into some conundrums that plague us in the present. In this context, it is unfortunate that the publication of a diary by a former officer in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat (PMS, later PMO) during the tumultuous period before the Emergency should be subjected to graceless mud-slinging by former aides of Mrs. Gandhi. Indeed, the attacks appear motivated by desperation to avoid scrutiny of the abilities of the ambitious Signora Gandhi. After all, if the myth of ‘Durga’ can be challenged, how can the mythology of the pretender be established?
Mr. B.N. Tandon’s PMO Diary-I (Konark Publishers) is a lucid account of the changing political landscape prior to the Emergency, as experienced and witnessed by a serving officer. Their as yet unappreciated historical value lies in the fact that they are honest, accurate and understated. Tandon, who must have begun to write under professional stress, was uncertain about eventual publication and so felt no pressure to embellish his facts or feelings. Though disapproving of events around him, bureaucratic restraint is the hallmark of the work.
Tandon joined the PMS in 1969, in the backdrop of the Congress rout in the 1967 state assembly elections in northern India. The secretariat drew its influence from the personality of P.N. Haksar, who helped Mrs. Gandhi launch a populist developmental programme and triumph over the party split in 1969. The Bangladesh war and victory in the 1972 state assembly elections embellished the image of both the Prime Minister and Haksar.
But despite Indira Gandhi’s public charisma, Tandon found that she suffered from terrible “inadequacies,” especially an inability to grapple with complex issues. Her personality, poor administrative skills, and downfall due to excessive dependence upon Sanjay Gandhi were a tragedy foretold with amazing prescience by the author. I am surprised, as I have not met any officer or politician from that era who expected the Emergency to happen; everyone was taken unawares.
The diary’s brings out the extent to which the Prime Minister was complicit in her son’s usurpation of power: “Indira Gandhi used to send her ministers and senior officials to Sanjay for orders. It is a matter of great misfortune that many important politicians and senior officials fully cooperated in this. The result was that a darbar was held in the PM’s house in the prime minister’s absence where senior officials reported their actions to this coterie and sought its orders. What was even worse was the fact that those officials who did not obey the coterie in the PM’s house found that they were being investigated by the CBI, police, the income-tax authorities, etc.”
Much of the ire Tandon has attracted is doubtless because of his sympathy for the issues espoused by Jayaprakash Narayan. Indeed, many citizens were concerned over the growing corruption, supercession of Supreme Court judges in 1973, erosion of democratic institutions, and misuse of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The protests against the corrupt Gujarat and Bihar governments were part of this uneasiness. Yet it could hardly have amused Congressmen that a serving officer should state that “…I can say with the fullest sense of responsibility that the decision handed down by the Allahabad high court was the correct one.” And in the context of the challenge to Mrs. Gandhi’s election petition, the exposure of Haksar’s statement to Maya Ray, wife of Siddharth Shankar Ray, that “…I was forced to go to every judge” is nothing short of a scathing indictment.
The fact that the Emergency was declared without official or political consultations is well known. What is astounding, however, is Tandon’s perceptive analysis of his boss. “….the Prime Minister…could not overcome her ego… At the moment there is no apprehension that the case…will go against her. But if that happens the prime minister will not accept the court’s decision easily…that is her character.… the prime minister will not flinch from anything to maintain herself in power. This could prove a big danger to our democracy. Individual liberties can be quashed…” In short, the Emergency did not happen because of Sanjay, but because of Mrs. Gandhi herself.
On a personal note, Tandon gamely drew my attention to a critical notation about my father, late Mr. Girilal Jain, for an article in The Times of India nearly a month after the Emergency. The article held the opposition responsible for the current situation, criticized the forced dissolution of the Gujarat assembly, and appreciated Mrs. Gandhi for realizing the dangers inherent in such movements. Wrote Tandon, “I can’t say if he believes in what he has written. It is possible that he has written it with the censor in mind. After all, it is not possible to express yourself freely these days. Jain…is of the view that it was wrong on the part of the opposition to adopt extra-constitutional means and that it is wrong to force the dissolution of legislatures before they have completed their terms.”
Obviously, Tandon has not reflected over this issue in the intervening years. In discussions with myriad friends and colleagues over several years, my father postulated that Mrs. Gandhi represented a “holding operation” for India. He argued that a new order was yet to be born, and no gain would come from the premature demolition of the existing one. I think Mrs. Gandhi intuitively understood that she was presiding over the inevitable decline of one-party dominance, and that is why she moulded the contemporary political debate around her persona. It gave her an unbeatable edge. Her populist strategies kept Congress in power in several states, while her opponents like JP, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh et al were tired warhorses from her father’s era. Given their questionable ability to win a popular mandate, she could be dismissive of their moral appeal. As is well known, the magic of 1977 proved pretty evanescent.
To return to the assemblies, the Janata Party dismissed Congress state governments and Mrs. Gandhi did a predictable tit-for-tat in 1980. In the following years, cumulative anger developed over the misuse of Article 356 by the Centre. Over the last twenty-five years a consensus has developed that elected governments should be allowed to run their term. The NDA, it may be recalled, had to revive the Bihar Assembly after opposition parties refused to ratify imposition of President’s rule even after grisly massacres in the state. Clearly the issue does not yield to simplistic solutions. There is also now an increasing appreciation that citizens vote differently in local, state and national elections, and democracy means giving them the freedom of diverse representation.
The Pioneer, 3 December 2002