CHANDRA SHEKHAR, the last of the legendary leaders who inspired masses not only to fight for independence but also for social and economic equality, passed away after a long illness on Sunday morning. He has, however, left many questions unanswered. He was a loner who felt that he might have to make many compromises if he carried a large following. He constantly endeavoured to find an answer to one question that has remained unanswered by history. He was in a dilemma whether he was suited more for a role inside the establishment with a seat of power under him or he was more suited for an anti-establishment role.
He made a tremendous contribution to pushing the economic and social policies of the Indian National Congress to the left of the Centre during the tumultuous years when the Congress was in the process of transformation to regain the lost ground in the fourth general election in February 1967 when the party had lost power in seven states and its majority in the Lok Sabha had become razor thin.
Indira Gandhi, who was struggling against the old guard, the colleagues of her father Jawahar Lal Nehru and responsible for her victory in the only ballot held for the leadership of the Congress Party in Parliament in January 1966 to retain her position, found in Chandra Shekhar a capably ally. She was in despair after she lost in the Congress Parliamentary Board during the selection of the party candidate for the presidential election in June 1969 at the Bangalore session of the All-India Congress Committee (AICC) and was on the verge of resigning when Chandra Shekhar prevailed on her to fight it out rather than give in to the old guard.
He was instrumental in the defeat of the Parliamentary Board during the June 1967 session of the AICC when he as a Young Turk forced an amendment to the party resolution on the economy to seek nationalisation of top private banks. He had promised Indira Gandhi in his first meeting with her in 1963 that he would convert the Congress into a socialist party or he would break it. He had joined the Congress in 1964 after his differences with the leadership of the Praja Socialist Party, where he had launched his political career from student days. He revered the leadership of Acharya Narendra Deo and was an admirer of Jayaprakash Narayan, another socialist leader who conscientiously stayed away from the seat of power.
Chandra Shekhar, born on April 17, 1927, in a poor Rajput farmer’s family at Ibrahim Patti in UP’s Ballia district that played a historic role during the freedom struggle, was a postgraduate from Allahabad University and was the leading light of the students’ movement. He joined the Socialist Party after his studies and carried on his work under the tutelage of Acharya Narendra Deo.
There is no doubt that he built his political career with an anti-establishment stance and had the courage to take on the mighty in political and industrial fields. His campaign against the growth of monopolies of 20 industrial houses in the post-Independence era had forced the Indira Gandhi government to go in for legislation against monopolies and restrictive trade practices. He played a crucial role during the two years that ended in the great divide of the Indian National Congress in November 1969 with the majority remaining on the side of Indira Gandhi.
He was confident of her victory in the March 1971 elections against the entire Opposition and the industrial barons opposing her with full media support, but he was also disillusioned when Indira Gandhi displayed no sign of delivering on her electoral promises. He again played a crucial role when JP had launched a movement against corruption in 1974 with his call for “Total Revolution” and had the courage of conviction as exhibited by holding a tea party at his house to honour JP in March 1975. Most Congressmen stayed away from the reception lest the leadership might construe their presence differently.
Initially, he was the only one to oppose the imposition of the Emergency after Indira Gandhi lost her election petition and was unseated by the Allahabad High Court. In the Congress party his was the lone voice that demanded her resignation on moral grounds as she had lost the legal battle. He was kept in solitary confinement at the Patiala jail from July 1975 to January 1977 and resisted the second attempt by supporters of Indira Gandhi to enlist his services on her side. He clearly told the middlemen that he could not side with the people who had tried to smother democracy in the country.
He headed the Janata Party that had emerged to face Indira Gandhi for the March 1977 election to the Lok Sabha. But he refused to join the Morarji Desai Cabinet despite pressure on him. He clearly told JP that he could not agree to join the Cabinet of a person whom he did not accept as a leader. Again he was faced with a similar situation in December 1989 when the caucus of a few leaders in the Janata Dal that had emerged to oppose Rajiv Gandhi manipulated the leadership issue in favour of Vishwanath Pratap Singh by keeping him in the dark of their eventual design. He refused to join the VP Singh government. As he said later, his joining would be tantamount to undermining the government. But he could not escape the pressure to accept the post of Prime Minister thrust on him when the country was in flames ignited by a political move of VP Singh to perpetuate his leadership by imposing the reservations policy for the Other Backward Classes based on the Mandal Commission report.
He knew that his government would not last long as he was not willing to compromise on issues or willing to give in to undue pressures. He preferred to resign when Rajiv Gandhi refused to support the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address to the joint session of Parliament in April 1991 than stay on even after Rajiv promised his support unconditionally. He refused to don the mantle again saying that it would expose him to blackmail.
But he made sincere efforts with his courage to resolve the issues of terrorism in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir, and the controversy over the Ayodhya shrine during his short tenure. He did not regret his short tenure. But he ended his political career as an unhappy statesman as he saw the all-round deterioration in politics and the upper hand gained by the advocates of the market economy. He was loath to intervene in debates in Parliament for the fear that the new elements that had come to the House would not show tolerance to hear a differing viewpoint.
There was no dearth of controversies surrounding him, but he never made an attempt to issue denials. In July 1979 when he was under attack from several politicians, he refused to clarify his position with regard to the issues concerned though the campaign was affecting his image. He said if his image was so fragile to be fractured by such a misdirected campaign, let it be shattered now but he would not join an issue with bankrupt minds.
