Chavan strongly supported the demand for conferring statehood on the Union Territories of Manipur and Tripura and on the sub-State of Meghalaya.  He thought that Nagaland, with a much smaller population, having been made a State, there could be no justification for denying Statehood to these more populous political units, each having a distinct identity.  He did not accept the traditional doctrine of the Ministry that the criterion of financial viability must be satisfied before a territory could be made a State.

There was a talk in certain quarters that Chavan had a strong regional loyalty and even some degree of regional bias.  As Home Minister he never showed any such narrowness.  In a speech in Parliament he condemned unreservedly, the aggressive parochial activities of the Shiv Sena; and I know it for a fact that he was not at all happy with Maharashtra's demand for merger of Goa with that State.  On the question of Belgaum he never expressed any opinion as Home Minister, and when the three officials concerned, a Joint Secretary hailing from Karnataka, and Additional Secretary from Maharashtra, and myself from far away Bihar, prepared an analytical note on the respective claims of Karnataka and Maharashtra, he refrained from making any comments, and asked me to put up the note to the appropriate committee of the Cabinet.  I may mention, by the way, that all three of us had agreed in our conclusions, which, of course, I am not free to reveal.

On the question of abolition of Rulership, he had strong views.  Both by intellectual conviction, and from a strong feeling against continuance of any vestige of feudalism, he wanted Rulership go.  He thought that if the Constitution was not amended to abolish Rulership (with payment of a reasonable compensation) there would be "Rulers" without any domain,and they would continue to receive Privy Purses and enjoy various privileges, for all time.  The radical humanism of his early years had been converted with passage of time, into practical socialism, of which promotion of equality and removal of social distinctions were integral parts.  This was reflected also in his keenness to have the process of land reforms completed, bridging the wide gap between what was contained in the statutes and what prevailed on the ground.

He was the roots of Naxalism in the inequities of agrarain relations, and the prevalence of injustice in society generally.  He was all for curbing violence, but he felt that the root causes of Naxalite violence had to be dealt with, if lasting results were to be achieved.  In one of his speeches in Parliament he declaed that unless there was agrarian justice, the green revolution might well turn red.

With Chavan there was no question of using the Army to put down the Naxalite movement.  The task was left to the West Bengal police, with reinforcements from the Central Reserve Police, who had clear instructions to act with restraint, and always to remember that they were sent to re-establish the rule of law and values of civilised life, and they must never act beyond the limits of law or in disregard of human values.

Chavan was a highly effective parliamentarian.  He was not an orator or coiner of telling phrases; he was content with making out in a business-like manner a ogent and convincing case.  He occasionally took recourse to cut and thrust in debate, but did so unagrasively and in good humour.  He mastered his brief thoroughly but spoke without notes.  His entire attitude in dealing with Parliament was revaaled in his comment on a clever draft answer to a question in Parliament; be did not, he said, wish to appear before Parliament as a clever men, but as one whose word could be trusted.  He was widely read and had considerable intellectual depth.  But he never showed off his accomplishments.  As his reputation as Parliamentarian rose, the inevitable jealousies were aroused.