Will the Gandhi scion be able to overcome the prevailing sentiment against the politics of dynasty?
DK Shivakumar’s mandate may be confined to Karnataka by virtue of his being a minister there but his sentiments seem to transcend the state’s borders and find resonance with a section of the Congress party’s central leaders. That is not to say that no one in the party’s central leadership had thought on those lines before or aired similar sentiments in the past.
In fact, first off the blocks was Kamal Nath, who, soon after the Congress debacle in the recent Lok Sabha election, sought to suggest that the party organisation was in dire need of an overhaul. He articulated as much in an interview to NDTV, in which he spoke about holding of elections to the Congress Working Committee. Perhaps, he added for good measure, it was time to put an end to the prevailing culture of patronage, too. Most recently, P Chidambaram told the same television channel that an individual from outside the Gandhi family could “someday” take over the reins of the party.
Not being exceptionally media-savvy or not having a Twitter account should be the least of Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi’s worries today. (Not that having a presence on social media is a bad idea.) For one who claims to have spent the better part of the past seven years reorganising the Youth Congress, he does not have much to show by way of outcomes. A straw poll would indicate that there is still a deep-seated resentment among a section of the Youth Congress activists at the manner in which the Gandhi scion has gone about ushering in purported reforms, which have been implemented more in the breach.
When Rahul came to head the Youth Congress in 2007, he spoke about democratising the organisation by regularly holding elections, but a common refrain even today is that family connections matter more than merit in the party and its various organs.
One sentiment that clearly emerges from interacting with some of the workers is that the Congress party seems to be woefully out of sync with the prevailing sentiment, inside and outside the party and in India’s hinterland, against the politics of dynasty and entitlement.
The asymmetry between the two principal political parties in the country today becomes even more pronounced when one considers who the Gandhis — Sonia and Rahul — are pitted against: Narendra Modi, who rose from being a chaiwallah in his childhood to occupy the highest office in the land, and Amit Shah, who rose from within the ranks to head the BJP. In such a situation, to rope in another dynast from the same family — Priyanka Gandhi Vadra — in the hope that she would pull the party out of the morass it finds itself in, is hardly going to be a solution. (The irony is unmistakable: The same Congress worker who rails against nepotism sees Priyanka as a saviour who will wave the proverbial magic wand and, voila!, make it all look good again. For her part, she has indicated time and again that she is not ready and willing yet to play a more active role in the party’s affairs.)
It should not come as a surprise that the Congress rank and file feels a sense of despair, made even more acute by the perceived absence of Rahul from the party’s affairs post the Maharashtra and Haryana Assembly elections. Incidentally, Rahul is a key part of a 12-member Congress committee constituted to “look into future challenges” but the nature and contours of the deliberations undertaken by this panel remain a mystery.
Similarly, the conclusions or recommendations by a committee set up under the chairmanship of AK Antony to examine the reasons for the party’s debacle in the Lok Sabha election did not help matters by absolving the party office-bearers of all responsibility. Instead, the committee’s report sought to ascribe the party’s loss to unspecified organisational handicaps and, oddly, manipulation of the media by its rival. Admittedly, winning isn’t everything but then again, you don’t win silver, you lose gold!
For a party that practically invented the art of election engineering, to commit the same mistake that its rivals did some decades ago is unforgivable. (In a sense, it speaks to the bankruptcy of the Congress’ present-day leaders.) The late Indira Gandhi won a landslide in 1971 on the back of a simple yet effective slogan of “Woh kehte hain Indira hatao, main kehti hoon garibi hatao (They are saying remove Indira, I’m saying remove poverty.)” The more her rivals (who had banded together in a grand alliance) conducted a personalised campaign against her, the more she gained. Cut to 2014, and the same Congress party targeted Modi at the expense of everything else, and ended up handing him an unprecedented victory at the hustings.
The Congress strategists seem to have forgotten that there is something called a law of diminishing returns and the effectiveness of a unidimensional campaign begins to wear off after a certain period of time. And this stratagem of the Congress to selectively target Modi will continue to bother the party if, as is being anticipated, it gangs up with some of its ‘secular’ allies against a resurgent bjp and trains its guns on Modi in the states where elections are due. The Congress needs to change tack to counter the Modi phenomenon.
If Rahul is missing in action, so are certain erstwhile Congress ministers who seem to have gone into hibernation after the Lok Sabha election. The alacrity with which some of them have resumed their professional careers sends out the wrong signal that they are abandoning the party when it needs their services the most. Consequently, the task of articulating the party’s views has been outsourced ad hoc to individuals who lack the requisite skills or the stature to make forceful interventions.
For the Congress party and its brains trust, now is not the time for window dressing; now is the time for a dressing down. Cosmetic surgery won’t do anymore. Rahul will have to lead from the front and ensure that his interventions are consistent, not sporadic. His cameos such as the ordinance-is-complete-nonsense-it- should-be-torn-up-and-thrown-away or his aggressive speech at the All India Congress Committee session in January this year have proved inadequate, sometimes counter-productive. On 28 October, Rahul met with his colleagues in what was only his first formal interaction with them after the recent round of Assembly elections. On the occasion, he touched upon the issue of holding organisational elections that would be transparent and fair. It remains to be seen how effective those elections prove to be in infusing new vigour into the party.
A reluctant politician Rahul might be but there is a thin line that divides being reluctant from being (or coming across as being) disinterested. This was brought out starkly earlier this year in Rahul’s interview to Times Now television channel. He was asked: “Had you not been a Gandhi, would you have been in politics at all?” His reply was neither categorical nor in the affirmative. The import of that silence (reticence?) was not lost on a discerning audience, some of whom wondered why the tenets of equal opportunity and internal democracy should not extend to his job.
As the party introspects and contemplates its future course of action, it could begin with rightsizing its top-heavy organisation, rejigging its team of officebearers at the national and state levels and spotting new talent within and outside the party, instead of paying a lefthanded compliment to the bjp by iterating that the latter marketed itself better in the Lok Sabha polls. As Chidambaram warned, the morale is low and the party’s leadership must respond urgently.
The question before the Gandhis is: would they rather perpetuate themselves than see the party revive and reinvent itself in keeping with the times we live in?
If the party survives, so will the Gandhis.
