Chavan was remarkably methodical in all his work.  While in Delhi he held a daily morning meeting with the others Ministers in the Ministry, and senior Officials.  Decisions were taken and recorded, and the action taken regularly monitored.  A fortnightly progress report was put up to him, but he had hardly any occasion to express dis-satisfaction with the progress made.  He trusted his officials, dealt with them in a courteous and relaxed manner, and they responded by giving their best.  No paper was ever held up with him, and he did not waste any time in refining notes and drafts so long as they conveyed the intentions correctly.  I may digress a little to mention that Chintaman Deshmukh, with all his exceptions intellectual gifts was reported to have had a similar attitude towards the paper work of officials, and so in Great Britain had the outstandingly able Sir John Anderson who held many high cabinet offices.  (I gathered this form an obituary written in a British journal by Sir Norman Brook who had been Cabinet Secretary).  Chavan was an extraordinarily trusting person and never questioned the motives of those with whom be disagreed.  Here is a revealing example.  Thompson who had been a Minister in Britain, connected with Defence, told me on a visit to Delhi, that he had an unusual experience in his dealings with Chavan in 1963.  Chavan had gone to Britain to buy arms and when Thompson wanted to discuss the price of the arms, Chavan's reply was that in a transaction with a friendly government, he did not wish to bargain; he would leave it to Thompson to determine the price, and he would pay without raising any question.  Thompson proceeded to tell me that he was taken aback with such complete trust and he could not quote the lowest possible price he could.  

I worked with Chavan for nearly four years and during that long period I never heard him speak ill of anyone.  Nor did he ever pass an unclean or unfair order.  Dispensing patronage and even occasional nepotism are regarded as acceptable privileges of political power.  But I cannot think of a single case of Chavan dispensing patronage or resorting to nepotism.  In all public appointments he went strictly be merit, and it is worth mentioning that of the five posts above the rank of Inspector General of Police, four were held by members of minority communities during his Home Ministership : a Parsi, a Muslim, a Sikh and a Christian.  Three of the appointments, including that of a Muslim to head the CRPF, which was of the greatest importance for the protection of the minorities were made during his tenure and on his advice.  After he had left the Home Ministry, I learnt while on leave, that one of the officers had been eased out by a sort of Byzanline manoeuvre !

The split in the Congress party in 1969 left him torn by a deep internal conflict.  He had made a commitment to Sanjiva Reddy from which he would not resile; but ideologically he was with Indira Gandhi in her progressive policies, including the nationalisation of banks.  He continued to function well enough during the rest of his tenure as Home Minister; but a subtle change had come over him, which was reflected in some diminution of his earlier self assurance.  On the day in June 1970 his portfolio was changed, he told me that he was leaving the highly sensitive Home Ministry with a sence of relief, adding with evident sadness that for some months he had not been sure of the ground on which he stood.  His conflicting loyalties during the split in the Congress proved to be a watershed in his political life; all the subsequent vicissituded of his career had their origin in that event.

Y. B. Chavan was undoubtedly prime-ministerial timber, but a country can have only one Prime Minister at a time, and not everybody who is fit to be Prime Minister can attain that office. And luck and circumstances too have a part in shaping the destinies of men.