In the largest and most impressive demonstration of the democratic process the world has ever seen, last month the Indian voters threw out Rajiv Gandhi and elected “P. Singh as the new leader. Gandhi’s Political party, the Congress (I) had ruled India for all but three years since the nation me independent in 1947,
Rajiv Gandhi lost not because the ‘opposition had a coherent alternative platform, in fact, the opposition is a loose confederation of many parties, but because of a read perception that he was incompetent, arrogant and corrupt.
If Indians did not revolt en masse against the misrule of Gandhi during the last five years, it is not because he was so dearly loved but because India is so diverse culturally, linguistically and religiously that a unified national movement would have seen difficult to sustain. Nevertheless, there were enough pockets of determined resistance in Punjab, Assam and Kashmir to portend trouble. The rulers of India from the British to Rajiv Gandhi have learnt well that the easiest way to govern is to play on the cultural and religious divisions of this multination state.
While it consolidates its power, the new government of VP Singh must also wrestle with the problem of what to do with Raj Gandhi. The problem is that as the son of the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the grandson of the first prime minister of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Rajiv and particularly his family name still command sufficient loyalty in India’s feudal society to be troublesome.
The new Indian government is committed to re-examine two events that more than anything else, are responsible for Rajiv Gandhi’s fall from grace: The Bofors arms scandal and the killing of thousands of Sikhs in Delhi and several other cities in India in the early days of his power in 1984,
The contention is that either directly or through his close associates, Gandhi was personally involved in both of these matters. He is reputed to have profited handsomely from the kickbacks in the Bofors arms deals with a Swedish firm which are estimated to reach millions of dollars. The massacre of Sikhs in 1984 is laid at the door of Gandhi’s cronies to satisfy his need for revenge after his mother, the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was killed by two Sikhs. In both of these cases Rajiv Gandhi is widely believed to be guilty, however as in the case of Richard Nixon and Watergate, the search for the smoking gun still requires a thorough investigation,
The widespread feeling in India is that if the matter of corruption in the Bofors arms deal is diligently investigated, connections to Rajiv Gandhi are bound to surface, In a court of law, be would be found guilty and years in jail would be automatic, That “would serve justice but not India very well. For many loyalists who fondly remember the strong arm methods of his mother
India, it could transform Rajiv from a laughing stock who inherited the mantle of power into a hero, A similar process ‘when Indira Gandhi was briefly ‘imprisoned in 1977; her political stock soard
If the killing of Sikhs in 1984 is honestly looked into, Rajiv Gandhi would probably, be found guilty and held personally responsible. Under India’s harsh laws, he would probably hang. This is reminiscent of what neighboring Pakistan under Zia-ul-Hug did — Zulfigar Bhutto, the father of the present Pakistani prime minister, Benazir. Zulfiqar Bhutto was held personally responsible for the murder of opposition politician and hanged. Similarly, though a political novice, the widow of Beant Singh who was named as one of the assassins of Indira Gandhi, won in the 1989 election with a huge majority. Again hanging Rajiv Gandhi might serve justice but not India, for it would transform him, a mediocre politician at best, into a martyr India would then never escape the shadow of the Nehru- Gandhi dynasty.
There is another more charitable way to deal with Rajiv Gandhi. Let the long arm of Justice Reach for him but not too swiftly. In the Indian bureaucracy where swiftness is unheard of, this would not be difficult. However, let it also be clearly understood that though slow, the wheels of justice will grind exceedingly fine. Let a door remain open and let him run. Let him abandon India which he misruled just as Ferdinand Marcos of Philippines and Baby Doc Duvalier of Haiti ran away from their countries. Let Rajiv Gandhi go to Italy or Switzerland or wherever he is reputed to have stashed his millions. That will automatically and forever close the door for his return to power.
India’s diversity which often hamstrings progress is also the best guarantee that no single power will so dominate India as to become a tyrant. Events during the days in 1976 when Indira Gandhi suspended the Indian constitution demonstrated the resilience and strength of India’s pluralistic society. Unlike his mother, Rajiv Gandhi probably hesitated to make a grab for power after losing the election because of recognition of the formidable power of the diversity of India. Democratic India’s interests are best served without the looming shadow of a dynasty, no matter how competent it seems to be. Dynasties, even benevolent ones, are not conducive to the development of democratic institutions. The fumbling alternatives are preferable.
Dr. LJ Singh New York University
Article extracted from this publication >> February 9, 1990
