[Letter to Mr Minoo Masani]

Summary

In this three-page letter dated New Delhi, April 6, 1970, J. M. Lobo Prabhu writes to Minoo Masani about internal disputes in the Swatantra Party, especially the proposed or ongoing disciplinary action involving C. C. Desai. He argues that the National Executive had directed him to seek a retraction from Desai without precipitating an open clash, and questions whether the disciplinary procedure followed by Cooper had any clear constitutional or party precedent. He also asks for the Central Parliamentary Board’s powers to be defined, particularly in relation to elections, discipline, and policy decisions.

The letter further addresses disagreements over monopoly, managing agencies, and managerial remuneration. Lobo Prabhu distinguishes Desai’s position from the Central Parliamentary Board’s stated opposition to monopoly, arguing that the party’s economic position should not be prejudiced by the size of companies and that sensitive policy matters should be referred to the National Executive or General Council. He disputes Desai’s statements about toppling the Gujarat government and contends that Desai’s earlier conduct and subsequent election to party office should weigh against renewed disciplinary action. The letter concludes by asking Masani to withdraw the matter from the agenda, while proposing procedural steps if that is not done.

Key points

• Lobo Prabhu says the National Executive asked him to obtain a retraction from C. C. Desai without causing an open confrontation.
• He questions the procedural basis for disciplinary action initiated by Cooper and argues that the State Party should be consulted.
• He calls for a clear definition of the Central Parliamentary Board’s powers over elections, discipline, and policy.
• He treats monopoly, managing agencies, and managerial salaries as important economic-policy questions requiring wider party consideration.
• He argues that Desai’s statements about toppling the Gujarat government conflict with a prior National Executive decision.
• He says Desai’s earlier conduct in parliamentary matters should not be reopened without consistent treatment of other offenders.
• He characterizes the dispute as largely personal and temperamental, while warning that an open conflict could seriously damage the party.