152. Telegram From the Embassy in India to the Department of State1
15148. CINCPAC for POLAD. Subject: President’s Decision Stirs Considerable Controversy.
1. C–Entire text
2. Summary: Considerable controversy continues to swirl around President Reddy’s decision to bypass Jagjivan Ram, dissolve Parliament, and appoint Charan Singh as caretaker Prime Minister.2 Perhaps the most controversial decision ever taken by an Indian President, it has been attacked by Janata leaders as illegal and unconstitutional. Beyond the legal wrangling, however, questions are being raised about the President’s motives and prejudices. Ram has said the President lied to him; others suggest deliberate efforts to exclude Ram because of his Harijan origins. The President, some say, favored Singh for caste reasons and that he had an understanding with Mrs. Gandhi. The truth of these allegations is never likely to be known, but at a minimum the trust that has been vested in the impartiality of the presidency in resolving serious political and constitutional problems has been severely strained. It is the kind of psychological damage that India’s political institutions, already entangled in a situation with few guidelines, do not need. End summary.
3. Considerable controversy continues to surround yesterday’s decision by President Sanjiva Reddy to bypass Janata leader Jagjivan Ram’s claim to form a new government in favor of dissolving Parliament and requesting Charan Singh to remain as caretaker Prime Minister. The decision is being widely described in the press as the most controversial taken by an Indian President in 30 years of Indian independence and is likely to emerge as a major issue during the coming electoral campaign.
4. A press release issued August 22 by the President’s office cites the unanimous advice to Reddy by the Charan Singh Cabinet to hold a national poll, and goes on to note that apart from Janata, “almost [Page 404] all parties are unanimous in demanding a fresh mandate from the electorate”. Constitutional authorities have challenged the legal basis of the President’s reliance on advice from the Singh Ministry, itself appointed by the President a month earlier and lacking a majority in Parliament. In rejecting the President’s rationale, various Janata spokesmen have claimed that Reddy abrogated arbitrary authority to himself and acted in a way that opens the door to “Presidential dictatorship”, as a statement issued by Ram put it. Former Prime Minister Morarji Desai described Reddy’s action as “absolutely unconstitutional,” but conceded to an interviewer that it would be difficult to mount a legal challenge to the President. Most observers dismiss as virtually non-existent prospects for impeachment of the President in the Rajya Sabha, as Janata has threatened to attempt.
5. However, beyond the legal wrangling, serious questions are being raised about the President’s motives and the intrusion of personal ambitions and prejudices into his decision. Today’s front-page editorial in the Indian Express, entitled “In Bad Odor”, refers to the “ugly situation” and discusses an apparent misleading of Ram and Janata by Reddy in which the President yesterday morning invited them to submit a list of their supporters, telling them that he was in no hurry to form a decision, and then within half an hour was “in cahoot” with Charan Singh and his colleagues. Immediately after this meeting came word of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The editorial limits itself to concluding that it was “abundantly clear from all this that the President had already made up his mind about dissolution” when speaking with Ram. The paper hopes that no more than a “perverse pleasure in play acting” on the President’s part was involved.
6. An angry demonstration late yesterday afternoon outside the President’s house by about 160 Janata MP’s heard bitter criticism from Party President Chandra Shekhar who called Reddy a “Lilliputian Fuehrer” and alleged that Reddy was motivated by anti-Harijan feelings and a determination that Janata should not form a government. Ram himself told reporters that Reddy had lied to him and had engaged in a “pre-planned conspiracy” to deprive him of the opportunity to become Prime Minister. These are themes likely to emerge as a major campaign issue for Janata, especially as it seeks to profit by the aspirations of Harijans to see one of their own as the nation’s leader. The President is likely to be further denounced in meetings to be held by Janata around the country on August 24 protesting his action.
7. An account now being heard, primarily from Janata sources, but also from journalists and from non-partisan sources, is that, in fact, Reddy has long harbored anti-Harijan feelings and these were a factor, according to those who spoke with him, in blocking Ram from becoming Prime Minister. Reddy, however, appears to have been more [Page 405] strongly oriented toward Charan Singh than against any single other Janata personality. Observers here note that Morarji Desai, a month ago, was also led by Reddy to believe he had extra time to prepare his list of supporters, only to be informed that there was no such extension and that his deadline had expired. Desai was left humiliated and branded as a prevaricator who sought falsely to pad his list. Reddy then turned to Singh, rather than to Ram who had become leader of the Janata commanding, then as now, the single largest bloc in the Lok Sabha. Linking these events, local sources note that, though from different states, Reddy and Singh come from relatively low status agricultural castes (Singh is a U.P. Jat; Reddy bears the name of his Andhra Pradesh caste), and that in the current politics of backward caste self-assertion, Reddy acted to advance the interest of his caste fellow. Other sources have reported, even before the events of the past week, that there existed some kind of understanding between Mrs. Gandhi and Reddy in which the lady was urging a national government on willing ears in the event that Charan Singh fell. These sources suggest that Mrs. Gandhi would not have decided against Singh unless she was confident that Reddy would not call on Ram to try to form a successor Ministry. However, unable to secure the consensus necessary to form the all-parties administration that he preferred (Ram refused to participate even as nominal Prime Minister, saying that he would have no independent authority), Reddy once again turned to Singh and his [garble] Congress (S) Ministry, giving it the advantage of being in office during the election campaign.
8. Confirmation of these allegations is never likely to materialize, but to the extent they are widely accepted the President’s actions will have seriously compromised his office. At the very least, he can be charged with not being seen to act impartially. In the wake of defection-oriented politics in New Delhi, when the utility and relevance of India’s British-derived parliamentary institutions are being seriously debated (New Delhi 13341),3 Reddy may have opened his office, until now regarded as genuinely and scrupulously non-partisan, to attack and [Page 406] further politicization. At a minimum, the trust that has been vested in the impartiality of the Presidency in resolving serious political and constitutional problems has been severely strained. It is the kind of psychological damage that India’s political institutions, already entangled in a situation with few guidelines and precedents, do not need.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790384–1084. Confidential; Immediate. Sent for information to Bombay, Calcutta, Colombo, Dacca, Islamabad, Kathmandu, London, Madras, and CINCPAC.↩
- Telegram 14728 from New Delhi, August 20, reported that on August 20, Singh “submitted his government’s resignation to President Sanjiva Reddy, and recommended to the President that elections be held. Singh’s resignation followed the earlier announcement by Mrs. Gandhi’s Congress (I) that it planned to oppose the motion of confidence in the Singh government that was to have been debated today in the Lok Sabha.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790379–0310)↩
- Telegram 13341 from New Delhi, July 30, transmitted the Embassy’s assessment that “India’s system of parliamentary democracy has withstood a crisis of major proportions. While the system proved to have a number of weaknesses, it was sufficiently flexible to produce a new government within a reasonable period of time. Whether that government will prove viable for more than a few months, however, is questionable. The big winner to emerge from the crisis appears not to be the new Prime Minister but rather former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, whose Congress (I) now holds the key to the success or failure of the Charan Singh government. Another probable gainer has been Jagjivan Ram, who as opposition leader will attempt to position himself to become Prime Minister if the Charan Singh government falls. Turbulence on the state government level appears more than likely.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790348–0335)↩