NEW DELHI: Six weeks after he took power in a sudden realignment of political parties, Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar is having a hard time convincing Indians that his Government is more than a front for the Congress Party of Rajiv Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi’s party, defeated at the polls in 1989, seems to be returning to power through the back door.
Mr. Shekhar, whose hastily assembled party, the Janata Dal Socialist, says it has about 60 seats in the $25seat lower house of Parliament, is candid about his situation. He is in power only because Mr. Gandhi, with 195 seats, chose to support him rather than return as Prime Minister himself after the Government of Prime Minister V.P. Singh lost a vote of confidence in November and the President decided not to call new elections.
Parliamentary democracy is a game of numbers and if the Congress Party does not support this Government, it cannot continue, Mr. Shekhar told reporters at the Press Club of India recently,
I could not deny the reality but in spite of being dependent, I can only hope that we shall prove effective on some fronts.
Mr. Shekhar’s apparent willingness to do Mr. Gandhi’s bidding, however, became the focus of a major national debate recently when the Indian Supreme Court stepped in to thwart the Shekhar Governments efforts to stop an investigation into charges of corruption in military purchases during Mr, Gandhi’s time in office.
In a series of hasty hearings that surprised many lawyers, M.K. Chawia a New Delhi High Court judge accused of being sympathetic to the Gandhi camp, had questioned the authority of the Central Bureau of Investigation to handle an inquiry into the Gandhi administration’s decision to buy artillery guns from the Swedish military concern Bofors. It was one of several scandals under scrutiny,
The Supreme Court stayed Justice Chawlas decision to rule on the case, and the step was hailed by many newspapers. The Hindustan Times, normally conservative, called Justice Chawlas actions sickening and perverse and said that without the Supreme Courts intervention faith in the judiciary would have suffered irreparable damage.
Barbara Crossete, NY Times
Article extracted from this publication >> January 4, 1991
