'A Person With A Very Pedestrian Intellect'

15 November 1974

The health ministry wants to make some amendments to the Sharada Act and the law ministry has endorsed theproposal. It is proposed to raise the age of consent of marriage....The Muslims have made this a major item intheir agitation. Many of their representatives have met the PM in this connection. The PM has assured themthat she will not make any change in their personal laws. And this is what has happened ... Something likethis happened when parliament was discussing amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code as well at thebeginning of the year. At the behest of the PM, one of the amendments sought to provide alimony for divorcedwomen. But when the muslims opposed this ... She agreed that there was no substance to this opposition. Herliberal instincts could not have arrived at any other conclusion. The liberal muslims had also urged her toamend the Code as proposed. Parliament had also accepted the amendment. But when the bill was at its laststages, the matter was reopened at the instance of the PM. The amendment was revised and passed in the nextsession. To be sure, the PM was not entirely happy at this but political self-interest prevailed overliberalism and reform. The PM has always shown a shade of cowardice when faced with such issues. Today alsothe the amendment of the Sharada Act was postponed. Many ministers pointed out that if this continued, themuslims would never see any social reform. But she refused to budge.

21 December 1974

...R.N. Kao [head of RAW] has started meeting the PM  more than he used to.... More than the head of the IB does. RAW is often criticised in Parliament. Jyotirmoy Bosu keeps alleging that the PM is using RAW to keep an eye on the Opposition. Although this work is done mainly by the IB, Bosu's allegations are not wholly baseless. Kao and his organisation do indulge in domestic surveillance. I've seen several unsigned reports submitted by them.

But RAW plays an even more important role. A couple of years ago I had come to know of an incident where RAW funds were used for party purposes.... Secret funds are always available with officials who have to do sensitive work, but these are not intended for party work.... (The PM) collects a lot of funds for the party.

31 December 1974

... I am filled with foreboding. Gradually, a crisis is building up which, if there is no improvement in the situation, will overwhelm the government. Unfortunately, the crisis is political.... The manifestation of this crisis can be seen in JP's campaign.

The main cause of the crisis is the PM's personality and character. I have always held that three qualities are needed to lead this country. Character, ability in its broadest sense and tolerance. Unfortunately, the PM is deficient in all three. In fact, she is completely lacking in tolerance. As far as ability is concerned, she is very able when it comes to political manipulation. But she has no ability to think seriously and in an organised manner about serious issues. I have discussed various issues for hours on end with her. But I have always felt that I am talking to a person with a very pedestrian intellect, whose concerns are not with the substance but with the form. She is only concerned with the impact on herself and on politics. She is not at all interested in the values which her father had done so much to foster. Nor is she deeply acquainted with our Constitution or the legal framework of our country. She is outwardly civilised and decent but she totally lacks cordiality. She does not trust anyone. As far as her character is concerned, she will not relinquish power regardless of what happens. Not just that, she will describe her actions as being legal. She does not have the high moral standards expected of the country's leader. In brief, the PM is only concerned with her power and rule.

Such persons tend rapidly towards fascism. They have no reservationsabout becoming dictators. Roosevelt once defined that the substance of fascism is the domination of thegovernment by one person. The truth is that her domination has increased massively and is still increasing. JPand Morarji [Desai, then opposition leader, later PM]  may be wrong about many things but they are rightwhen they say that a cloud of fascism and dictatorship is hovering over the country. Their warnings are notmisplaced.

... I can state with complete responsibility that ministers and senior officials have lost their independence. Nothing moves without the PM's approval or permission. No minister has the courage to speak frankly to her.... The PM will not flinch from anything to maintain herself in power. This could prove a big danger to our democracy. Individual liberties can be quashed.

17 January 1975

I learnt from BG [Bhalchandra Deshmukh, Secretary of Maharashtra Chief Minister V.P. Naik] that the chief minister and other leaders of Maharashtra were annoyed with the PM because of the growing influence of Rajni Patel.... He also added that Rajni Patel was misusing the PM's and the party's name. He wondered why the PM cannot deal directly with the chief minister and others and it does not behove the PM to stoop to such low levels of politics. I listened to all this quietly and asked BG only one question: why doesn't the chief minister speak directly to the PM? He replied that the chief minister believes that the PM does not trust either the chief minister or Chavan completely. Nor was he sure of the PM's reaction if he spoke to her directly. She often tends to make the wrong inferences from such direct approaches, and begins to contemplate revenge.

I asked BG why Naik thought that the PM played politics with everything. He replied that just one instance would explain. Some months ago, the Congress and the Shiv Sena had arrived at an understanding. Its architect was Rajni Patel. The PM herself had approved the agreement and she was fully in the know. But when people began to criticise this strategy, she wrote an extremely bitter letter to Naik and blamed him for the whole thing. BG said that Naik was absolutely stunned when he received this letter.... Naik had never thought that the PM would write a secret letter to create evidence of her innocence.

12 June 1975

This day will go down in history. Bad news began to come in from the morning itself….

[...] VR [V Ramachandran, joint secretary to the PM] called me at 10.05 and said that the court had decidedagainst the PM but that the news was being confirmed. I immediately went to the PTI/UNI teleprinters, whichare situated, between my room and VR's. There I read that Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha had set aside the PM'selection and upholding the charges of corruption, he had barred her from contesting any election for six yearsunder section 123(7) of the Representation of the people Act. I started towards Prof Dhar's [Professor P NDhar, advisor to PM (1970-71), secretary to the PM (1971-77)] room. He was hurrying downstairs to go to thePM's house. It was impossible to do any work after that, so I went to Sharada's [H Y Sharada Prasad, deputyand later information advisor to the PM (1966-77)] room where VR was already present. We were all saddened bythe news and on our urging Sharada also went off to the PM's house. [...]

Seshan [N K, private secretary to the PM] and Sharada had also come back from the PM's house by lunchtime.Seshan said that as soon as the news came in ministers began to gather at the PM's house. The PM conferred fora while with Gokhale [H R, law minister], Ray [Siddharth Shankar, chief minister of West Bengal] andPalkhivala [Nani, eminent constitutional lawyer] but then started meeting other people. She kept going in andout of the room. But by 10.30 she had had a whispering discussion with Dhawan [R K, Mrs G's PA, a closeacolyte of Sanjay Gandhi] and Sanjay [Gandhi, younger son of the PM], after which the former started phoningpeople around Delhi to organise demonstrations in favour of the PM. The UP [Uttar Pradesh] chiefminister was also contacted to send people from the areas around Delhi for the demonstration and to organiseone in Lucknow as well. Bansi Lal issued orders from the PM's house that all deputy commissioners in Haryanashould help organise these rallies. Then calls were made to say that the rallies should be organisedpost-haste with a view to demonstrating public support for the PM. The entire administrative machinery ofDelhi was pressed into service and very soon rallies began.

 By lunch the PM had also decided that, since the high court had itself stayed the operation of itsorder for 20 days and that she would appeal to the supreme court against it, she would not resign immediately.[...]  Later, from the description given by Sharada, it was clear that the PM has decided that she wouldnot resign as it would be suicidal to the office. That is why she is not talking directly to the press.

After lunch, Ranjan [Jitendra, deputy secretary] and Salman [Haidar, director, later Foreign Secretary ofIndia] came to my room and stayed there. We kept going over the same issues and kept making guesses about thefuture course of events. [...] They all agreed that the PM had committed a major error by not resigning andthat her decision was not consistent with democratic norms. She will also come in for a lot of personalcriticism.

Bhaskar Ghosh [then secretary to West Bengal Chief Minister S S Ray] came to see me after they left. Hetold me that as soon as it was announced that the judgement would be delivered on the 12th, the PM asked Rayto come to Delhi a day before. But he came on the 10th night. Ghosh also told me that everyone had advised thePM not to resign and that she was inclined to accept this advice. But at about 5 pm, the PM called Ray andfrom what she said it looked as though she was considering resigning. (But this was just her phoney style andnothing else.) Ray was very perturbed to hear this and rushed off to the PM's house. There was a meeting ofthe Congress parliamentary board from 6 pm.

GR [G Ramachandran, joint, later additional, secretary to the PM], VR, Seshan, and Sharda are all of theview that she should not resign. But VR also adds that if the court doesn't grant an absolute stay, she shouldquit. Prof. Dhar was not sure. He was restless and would come to my room or to VR's but it wasn't possible todiscuss anything with him. When he came to my room, some others were present but he did talk to VR. Nothingdefinite was said but VR thinks that Prof Dhar is in favour of the PM resigning. He is not very happy aboutall these rallies but is helpless in stopping them.

By the evening the Gujarat election results began to come in. The Janata Morcha seems well ahead of theCongress. It looks as if the Congress will be defeated which, in reality, will be the PM's defeat as she hascarried the entire burden of the Gujarat elections on her shoulders.

When I reached home, Kammi [Kamla Tandon, sister-in-law of the author] asked me what the PM would do if thesupreme court did not grant her an absolute stay. I replied that to the extent that I have been able tounderstand the PM, she will do anything except quit and that, in order to stay in power, she will not hesitateto use even the most inappropriate means. Kammi didn't like what I said.

20 June 1975

 There was a huge rally at the India Gate in support of the PM today which Sharada attended. Accordingto him nearly a million people had gathered. But other officers who attended said there were fewer people,about 3 or 4 lakhs. But everyone is agreed that Delhi has never seen a bigger rally....Government funds andmachinery was fully utilised for this rally. But the intelligentsia's question is, what is the connectionbetween the court judgement and public demonstrations?

21 June 1975

I learnt from Gujral [I K, then minister for information and broadcasting, later PM] today that Sanjay hadgiven him a severe dressing down because yesterday's rally had not been properly publicised. He was alsoannoyed that the campaign that is underway in support of the PM too is not getting proper publicity. Gujralwas upset that Sanjay should upbraid him. He had been summoned to meet the PM but was asked to meet Sanjay.His meeting today with the PM was also not pleasant. She expressed her dissatisfaction at the inadequacy ofthe publicity and wanted the proposed demonstration in front of Morarji's house to be properly highlighted.

She said that she wanted to see the radio and TV scripts, not just of this but of all news bulletins beforethey were broadcast. Gujral replied that he too didn't ordinarily see the scripts. The PM then angrilyremarked that if he didn't see the scripts why was he the minister for information and broadcasting. She saidthat whether or not he saw the scripts, the Prime Minister wanted to see them.

Later it was learnt that about 20-25 persons had gone to Morarji's house and did some stone-throwing there.But by the time he came out they had all run away. I don't know how much this was publicised by radio and TV.Gujral was pouring his heart out to Seshan and I was quietly listening, thinking that if he is so upset, whydoes he not resign?

The practice adopted by Congress ministers and MPs of not saying anything is what has added to the fearcreated by the PM. On the one hand, they are scared of telling her the truth; on the other, they keepbemoaning the fact. Nehru's colleagues were never afraid of speaking their minds and he, too, didn't mind whenthey did.

I remember how, during the land acquisition in Ghaziabad, the chief minister of UP, C B Gupta, had writtena very frank letter to Nehru and how still more frankly he had spoken to him. That was the only time I metNehru in his office. Gupta had told him that if he wanted to discuss the matter in detail, he would send me tohim. Later, Gian Prakash who is the health secretary now, and I had gone to see Nehru. The late Amir Raza wasalso present on behalf of the centre. As far as I recall this was in September 1963. In the end, Nehruaccepted the basis on which we had been proceeding in determining the compensation. Seshan tells lots ofstories like this one. But today, if the PM becomes adamant on something, even her senior colleagues don'thave the courage to talk to her about it.

Seshan said at lunch that the PM's inner group was busy preparing a plan these days through whichdemonstrations would be organised in front of the main opposition leaders.

23 June 1975

He [Prof Dhar] then showed me a note which he had sent to the PM after meeting the president [PresidentFakhruddin Ali Ahmed] on June 17. It was a very brief note. The opposition leaders had met the president andhad put forth two demands. One was that the parliament session be held on time and the other was that the PMshould stop misusing the government's broadcasting medium. After the meeting, the president had summoned ProfDhar to give him a summary of the meeting. This is what he had recorded in the note. The PM had responded witha long minute the gist of which was that the important issue of the day was to ensure that public morale wasnot dampened. She said that this was why she was addressing the rallyists who came to her residence, to tellthem the question was not about any one individual but of maintaining the unity of the country. She furtherwrote that the opposition was totally wrong in saying that these people were being brought to her house eitherby force or by the offer of money. It was also being wrongly alleged that Congress workers had burnt an effigyof Justice Sinha or that they had abused the judiciary. She wrote that she had made this clear to therallyists while addressing them.

After reading her minute, I felt that she would not hesitate to use any means to remain in power. I couldnot find any other interpretation of her minute on Prof. Dhar's note. She seems to have convinced herself thatthe judgement is not against her but against the people of the country, which is why she thinks it isnecessary to keep the peoples' morale up. But how voluntary these rallies are is clear from what is beingtalked about and what is appearing in the newspapers. To consider yourself a synonym for the people is a clearindicator of dictatorial tendencies. The entire drama or 'swaang' of holding rallies is only to providevalidity to her own views. But the basic issue is whether the PM is above the law. She refuses to answer thisquestion, nor is she prepared to face it on principle. The reason for what she is saying now - that neitherdid her supporters burn Justice Sinha's effigy nor criticised the judiciary - was explained to me by Sharada.When three or four days ago she was talking to some officials about the publicity campaign, her attention wasdrawn to the fact that by doing all this her supporters could be held guilty of contempt of court andtherefore such acts should be stopped. It is since then that she has started saying that her supporters havedone nothing wrong. This minute is a crude attempt to create record for the same.