Mrs Gandhi Faces Open Opposition

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31319, 15 March 1967, Page 13

Mrs Gandhi Faces Open Opposition

(N.Z.P. A.-Reuter—Copyright) NEW DELHI, March 14. Mrs Indira Gandhi’s administration faces a headon clash with powerful opposition groups in several Indian states where it failed to win an over-all majority in last month’s General Elections. Already the Indian Government has imposed direct Presidential rule in the troubled northern state of Rajasthan—the scene of recent political rioting.

The President, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, last night signed a proclamation taking over the state administration on the constitutional advice of the new Government.

In Rajasthan, where polling left no party with an absolute majority, the joint opposition front claimed that they had been given a mandate to rule the new state assembly. But the state governor called on the Congress Party, which had the largest number of seats to form a government. This led to rioting, which left at least nine dead and 200 injured and the imposition of a curfew in the capital, Jaipur. Similar Crises

The new Cabinet’s first decision in office—to introduce direct rule—looks certain to herald similar crises between the central Government and state administrations formed by Opposition groups. Uttar Pradesh state resembles Rajasthan in having

the Congress Party, as the largest group, being called to form a government while the opposition claims its ability to rule. In the other three states where Mrs Gandhi’s Congress Party failed to win an overall majority—West Bengal, Punjab and Orissa—opposition fronts have formed administrations. Announcing the imposition of direct rule in Rajasthan, the Home Minister, Mr Y. B Chavan, said the state’s Con-

gress Party leader. Mr Mohan Lal Sukhadia, had told the state governor that he did not want to take responsibility for forming a government because of the disordered situation. According to official sources in New Delhi, Rajasthan’s governor recommended that the state assembly be dissolved. But the Government decided to suspend it for an unspecified time instead of for the six-month period allowed under the Constitution.