[Letter to Mr Minoo Masani]

Summary

This six-page correspondence packet records Maharajkumar Shivbhadrasinhji’s objection to an alleged change in the Swatantra Party’s nomination process for the 1968 Rajya Sabha elections. In a covering letter dated 18 January 1968 to M. R. Masani, Shivbhadrasinhji encloses a letter to Professor N. G. Ranga and asks that the Central Parliamentary Board uphold the principle that a candidate selected by the Board should not be permitted to substitute another nominee.

The enclosed correspondence argues that Sumant Patel had previously been selected as a candidate, while the possibility of allowing him to nominate another person—identified as U. N. Mahida—is presented as a new and procedurally improper development. Shivbhadrasinhji contrasts the Central Board’s earlier rejection of such a proposal with later communications from N. Dandekar, and warns that permitting substitution would be undemocratic, weaken party discipline, and damage public confidence. A copy of a 19 January letter from Chandrasinhji of Dhrol repeats the criticism, while H. M. Patel’s 12 January letter offers a conflicting account: he says the party had committed itself to Babubhai Vaidya for the first Rajya Sabha vacancy and Sumant Patel, or his nominee, for the next.

Key points

• The packet is dated principally 18 January 1968 and concerns nominations for the 1968 Rajya Sabha elections.
• Shivbhadrasinhji writes to Minoo Masani and encloses a letter addressed to Professor N. G. Ranga, president of the All India Swatantra Party.
• The central objection is to allowing previously selected candidate Sumant Patel to nominate another person in his place.
• The correspondence claims that an earlier comparable proposal had been rejected by the Central Parliamentary Board.
• N. Dandekar’s circular letter of 4 December 1967 is presented as the point at which the possibility of a nominee was introduced.
• U. N. Mahida is described as an eminent engineer and administrator whose candidacy may have been deliberately excluded from consideration.
• The writers characterize candidate substitution as an undemocratic practice that could damage party unity and public trust.
• H. M. Patel’s copied letter disputes the account by describing an earlier party commitment to Babubhai Vaidya and then Sumant Patel or his nominee.