India: The Congress System on Trial

Abstract

The year started with an event that shocked the nation, the sudden and premature death of Lal Bahadur Shastri-a man that was shaping into a leader of consensus, and on grounds quite different from those of Jawaharlal Nehru. It was not the removal of charisma that hit the nation this time but rather the sudden disappearance of a skilled and experienced manager, engaged at various levels and mediating between a variety of interests, and accepted by each as leader. What is more, Shastri had steered the country through, a balance between domestic and foreign policy issues and thus managed to, bring the different sections of the leadership to adopt a realistic approach to nation-building, himself wielding the authority that was needed to take the country through the critical problems of food, election and foreign policy. It was the breach that was affected in this merging consensus-fitfully started under Nehru's spell and institutionally shaping under Shastri-that provides us with an outlook for 1966. The events of major political significance within the country during 1966 clustered around (i) the election of the new leader of the Congress Party and the new pattern of alignments that emerged after it, (ii) the construction and implementation of the machinery for the selection of Congress candidates for the coming elections, (iii) the devaluation crisis and the rift between the Government and the Party organization, (iv) the formation of electoral alliances among opposition parties and of rival Congress parties in several States, and (v) the wave of violence and organized 'direct action' in various parts of the country. Externally, the country was faced with problems of both food and economic aid and of building fresh channels of diplomatic effort. I shall try to provide a brief analysis of these events from the point of view of the stability and the integrity of the system in what was undoubtedly a year of crisis. The election of the new party leader in 1966 underscores developments and raises issues far different from the Nehru succession in 1964. For one thing, the Congress President, Mr. Kamaraj, was not permitted to find out the consensus and declare it. There is reason to believe that the state of opinion among M.P.s contributed to this.' Second, there was no clear choice as was the case with Shastri. Third, the decision was the result of a keenly