by Kuldip Nayar
One thing I introduced to increase the newspaper’s circulation was to encourage reader participation by the inclusion of a local page entitled ‘We have a grievance sir’. This was just twice a week but the response was poor. I thought that the follow up on the readers’ complaints would interest them. ‘Redress’ was added on the basis of complaints that readers had against organizations such as the municipal corporation or life insurance companies, and this gave the column momentum.
Another effort which did not work was on instances of individual enterprise in relation to voluntary work. We devoted quarter of a column every week and captioned it: ‘Brick by Brick’. Even after I announced a prize of Rs 25 for the story accepted, there was little response. We were able to sustain the column for only three months because readers did not send anything. This was positive journalism of sorts.
The Statesman had, however, other political developments to cover. Punjab was very much in the news because of agitation for a Punjabi suba. Indira Gandhi saw no alternative to this and Punjab was divided into Punjabi-speaking Punjab and Hindi-speaking Haryana. This was a long-standing demand of the Sikhs who had launched an agitation.
Nehru had stood firmly against Punjab’s division, arguing that the people in the region were the ‘warp and weft’ of the society as it existed. The Sikhs, who then constituted 65 per cent of the population, were happy over the majority which, however, went on falling as a consequence of the influx of labour from outside, particularly from Bihar and Kerala.
Indira Gandhi’s decisiveness was a strong point but the streak of authoritarianism in her make-up became palpable when she revived the Preventive Detention Act, apparently to silence her critics. There were critics too to contend with. To her delight, she found virtually all state chief ministers telling her individually and collectively that they found it difficult to administer their states without a detention law. She had earlier allowed legislation of that nature to lapse in deference to the communists.
She revived the measure by issuing an ordinance. Five weeks later, when parliament met, she had the Maintenance of Internal Security Bill passed in the face of vociferous and heated protests from the opposition who dubbed it a ‘Kala Kanoon’ (Black Bill), and so it proved to be because she used it indiscriminately. How different she was from Nehru who had doubts on passing such a law, saying that any suppression was painful.
The communists were however happy when Indira Gandhi began the promised amendments to the constitution. Nehru too had Article 39 altered when the Zamindari Abolition Act was thrown out by the Supreme Court. To him, the constitution was not sacrosanct, and in this context he wrote to the chief ministers:
A Constitution must be held in respect, but if it ceases to represent or comes in the way of the spirit of the age or the powerful urges of the people, then difficulties and conflicts arise. It is wise therefore to have not only stability and fixity of purpose, but also a certain flexibility and pliability in a Constitution.
With Bharti (sitting in the centre) and her parents Bhim Sen and Lalita Sachar and other family members after our wedding in Shimla, 1949.
My wife Bharti’s family at Raj Bhawan, Hyderabad where my father-in-law Shri Bhim Sen Sachar (sitting third from left) was the state governor from 1957 to 1962. Bharti is sitting extreme right.
With my with elder son Sudhir.
Bhim Sen Sachar, my father-in-law was member of the Indian National Congress and played an active role in the freedom movement.
In Jalandhar, 1958, where I was sent by the Press Information Bureau (PIB).
With Bharti and our elder son Sudhir.
Participating in a journalism orientation course at Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University, in the US, 1949.
With Lal Bahadur Shastri (standing in centre) and M.L. Bharadwaj (principal information officer standing extreme left) during Lok Sabha election in 1957.
With India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in the election room during Lok Sabha election in 1957.
With my father Dr Gurbaksh Singh and mother Puran Devi.
With Bharti at Raj Bhawan, Hyderabad.
Picnic with friends at Srinagar in 1949.
With Lal Bahadur Shastri (standing first from left) and B.V. Keskar (second from left), India’s first minister of information and broadcasting.
With Chief Minister of West Punjab Feroz Khan Noon (second from left) and Bhim Sen and Lalita Sachar at Noon’s residence in Lahore, 1955.
With president of Pakistan Gen. Zia-ul Haq during one of the interviews. Gen. Zia was the president of Pakistan from July 1977 to his death in August 1988.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at a press conference.
Shaking hands with Haile Selassie I, emperor of Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974, at Rashtrapati Bhawan, during his visit to India in 1956.
With V.K. Krishna Menon, defence minister from 1957 to 1962.
With George Fernandes, popular trade unionist leader. Fernandes was a member of Janata Dal and later founded the Samata Party.
With friends Romesh Thapar (centre) and Nikhil Chakravarty (right).
With Y.B. Chavan, a prominent leader of the Indian National Congress.
Visit to China with Bharti in 1972.
Interacting with students in China, 1972.
Farewell by I.K. Gujral, minister of external affairs on the eve of departure for London as India’s high commissioner in 1990.
Inauguration of Nehru Gallery at London by Queen Elizabeth in 1990.
As the new Indian high commissioner on way to present credentials to the Queen at Buckingham Palace, London.
With President R. Venkatraman at London, during his state visit to the United Kingdom in April 1990.
With a group of retired ICS officers at London.
With President R. Venkatraman on a state visit to the United Kingdom in April 1990.
Official residence of the Indian high commissioner in Kensington Palace Gardens, London.
With Bharti meeting British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
With Amjad Ali Khan and his family during their visit to London.
Bharti with Pandit Shivkumar Sharma (left) and Bhim Sen Joshi (right) at the high commissioner’s residence, India House.
Farewell ceremony at London. Also seen in this picture is deputy high commissioner Mr Salman Haider.
Bharti with our two daughters-in-law at the wedding of our younger son Rajiv.
With Justice V.M. Tarkunde (first from left), a prominent lawyer and civil rights activist.
At the first Indo-Pak meeting of editors at Islamabad in 1979. Also seen in this picture is Khushwant Singh.
With Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.
Lighting of candles at Wagah border in 1992. This was the first time candles were lighted on the night of 14/15 August.
With members of the Indian cricket team at London in 1990. Also seen in the picture are Bishen Singh Bedi and Dilip Vengsarkar (from L to R).
At the Wagah border.
Being felicitated by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee in 1998.
With former prime minister Chander Shekhar (extreme left) and Rabi Ray (second from right), former Speaker of Lok Sabha (December 1989 to July 1991).
With senior leader of the Bhartiya Janata Party, L.K. Advani.
Receiving an award from President Giani Zail Singh at Tirupati.
With my brother-in-law Rajinder Sachar. A distinguished lawyer and former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, he has been a strong advocate of human rights and civil liberties.
With Bharti on a holiday near river Beas.
My two sons Sudhir and Rajiv (sitting from L to R) with their wives, both Kavita.
At Lahore with other human-rights activists.
Getting honoured by Sankaracharya of the Kanchi muth.
Honorary PhD conferred by chief minister of Punjab Prakash Singh Badal at Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
At my office in Delhi
With President
A.P.J. Abdul Kalam at the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
A recent family outing to Agra: With Bharti and our children and grandchildren.
This is in sharp contrast to today’s argument that a demand must be within constitutional provisions.
Indira Gandhi’s outlook was there for all to see when the first amendment of the constitution she effected was in Article 24 to make it explicit that parliament had the power to amend all parts of the constitution, including those relating to fundamental rights. Surprisingly, this did not raise any objections. The 25th amendment however evoked loud protests. It introduced a new clause 31 (c), under which, after parliament had certified that a bill was intended to ensure equitable distribution of wealth or prevent the concentration of economic power (39 (b) and 39 (c) of the Directive Principles) it could not be challenged either under Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19 (right to property, freedom of association, speech, etc.), or Article 31 (no deprivation of law except under the authority of law).
Subsequently, the Supreme Court held in a majority judgement in the Keshavananda Bharati case that the basic structure of the constitution could not be changed, even by parliament, and this continues to hold good to this day.
What I found galling about Indira Gandhi’s government was its insistence on ‘commitment’ from people in high places in the judiciary, the bureaucracy, parliament, and the state legislatures which basically implied personal loyalty to her. Like some others, I would argue that there should be total commitment to the nation and the constitution but not to an individual, however high. Ministers in her cabinet, particularly Mohan Kumarmanglam, minister for steel, known for his pronounced communist views, was her alter ego. He explained to me that commitment represented an outlook. Bureaucrats, he said, should bear in mind the preference of the ruling party’s philosophy and ideology in their decision-making. Through Law Minister H.R. Gokhale, and on the advice of former West Bengal chief minister, Siddharth Shankar Ray, whom she inducted into her cabinet for his ‘progressive views’, she selected the Supreme Court to show what she meant by commitment.
The three seniormost judges, Justice I.M. Shelat, Justice K.S. Hegde, and Justice A.N. Grover were superseded for ‘their outlook’. They heard the news of their removal over the radio at 5 p.m., half an hour or so after they returned from the court in the same car. Justice Ajit Nath Ray, their junior, was appointed chief justice. All the three had been on the bench which had ruled that the basic structure of the constitution could not be altered even by parliament.
All the three, in separate interviews to me, said that ‘the supersession was her doing’. It created a furore in the country, many characterizing it as a ‘rape of democracy’. Kumaramanglam defended the government’s action on the ground that it had to take into account ‘not merely the legal knowledge and skill which we do but also the philosophy and outlook of the judge’. Never had the judiciary been subjected before to such ideological considerations.
Indira Gandhi attributed the propaganda against her to the congress old guard. She decided to join battle with them but awaited an appropriate opportunity to humble them. Congress President N. Nijalingappa, the ebullient former chief minister of Mysore, who often invited me to breakfast, told me that she had to be disciplined. He and some others among the old guard felt she was ‘too dictatorial’. Nijalingappa showed me what he wrote in his diary on 12 March 1969: ‘I am not sure if she deserves to continue as PM. Possibly there may be a showdown.’ The opportunity arose when there was a vacancy for the position of the president of India following the death of Dr Zakir Hussain on 3 May 1969.
Indira Gandhi did not wish to go by the advice of elderly Congress leaders or even make a pretence of consulting them. Kamaraj, who had brought his senior colleagues around to vote her in as prime minister felt small. He would rationalize that he had no alternative. What Kamaraj did not admit was that he preferred her because she was the daughter of Nehru, his icon. Nijalingappa said he was pretty sure that Nehru had his daughter in mind as his successor. In his diary, he wrote on 15 July 1969 that Nehru ‘was always grooming her for the prime-ministership obviously and patently’. This was more or less the same thing that Shastri had told me six years earlier.
S.K. Patil, from Bombay, was more categorical and told me that ‘Nehru would have seen to it that she became prime minister after his death but he realized that she needed experience and expected her to take over some day.’
Indira Gandhi’s defence, as she spelt it out to me, was, ‘Had I been in my father’s mind, surely he would have wanted me to be elected to parliament. In fact, whenever I made the suggestion he would say that I should not go into parliament.’
The problem before the elderly leaders, the syndicate, was how to stop her from splitting the Congress party when they had blocked her nominee, Jagjivan Ram, from being appointed president of India. Their own candidate, N. Sanjiva Reddy, whom they had sponsored as the official Congress candidate, had been defeated and there was no doubt that Indira Gandhi had been responsible for that. She had got an independent candidate, V.V. Giri, to file his nomination papers when her nominee, Jagjivan Ram, was not adopted by the Congress, and got Giri elected.
The old guard wanted to take disciplinary action against her for defeating the party’s official candidate. Her argument was that the question at issue was the prime-ministership. She said in a statement: ‘It is presumptuous on the part of these handful of men to take disciplinary action against the democratically elected leader of the people. Are we to submit to them [the party bosses] or clean the organization of these undemocratic and fascist persons.’
It was an entertaining time for us in the press. Both sides would issue a statement close to the night deadline of newspapers, each expecting that its press release would be the last story that the morning paper could accommodate. Thank God, there were no television channels then, otherwise they would have been breaking news all the time.
Nothing seemed to be able to avert the split in the Congress party because the old guard was not willing to compromise on the point of discipline. Indira Gandhi, on the other hand, was determined to have a showdown. Both sides began assessing their relative strength in the Lok Sabha. The House had a total of 523 sitting members. The press was told by Indira Gandhi’s side that it had with it 330 members. This was meant to demoralize the opponents and to win over those who were sitting on the fence.
We, in the Statesman, headlined the story, ‘Presence of 330 at meeting claimed’. I was informed that Indira Gandhi did not like the headline, and later, at a public meeting, without mentioning our newspaper by name, she said that headlines in newspapers were suggested by their proprietors. Today this might be true but it was not the practice at that time.
Indira Gandhi’s actual strength proved to be 220 which did not give her an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. She was nonetheless confident of the support of 46 Communist members who were egging her on to fight against ‘the vested interests’. According to them, the process of polarization between the Left and Right had begun and they had no hesitation in backing her.
A regional party from Tamil Nadu, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), saw in the split an opportunity to play a part at the Centre. Subsequent events proved that the party’s calculations in supporting Indira Gandhi were not wrong for she gave Rs 17 crore (nearly $16.5 million) from Central funds to Tamil Nadu to meet the DMK’s exaggerated claims of damage to the crop from drought.
Other political parties also saw their opportunity in the split and took sides. The Jana Sangh confined largely to north India, lent tacit support to the Congress party bosses but not because it liked them. The split evoked a vague hope for an alternative government in which the Jana Sangh saw an opportunity for participation. A similar expectation welled up in the heart of the Swatantra Party.
In the camp of the old guard too there were some members who preferred the ‘dynamism and courage’ of Indira Gandhi. The threat of disciplinary action subdued them because th
ey were told that she might not be in the Congress party for long.
The Praja Socialist Party (PSP) was in a predicament. It did not want to miss the bus of socialism, which Indira Gandhi claimed to represent, but was uncertain whether the time to ride it had come. Even so, it was inclined to go along with Indira Gandhi. However, given that the Communists were on her side, caused the PSP, known for its anti-Communist stance, to distance itself from her.