Theatrics isn’t leadership
By Praful Bidwai

As many Indians expected, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi has succeeded in scuttling an odious ordinance which would have enabled lawmakers sentenced to jail for two years or more to hold on to their seats. It took the cabinet a mere five minutes to withdraw it.

Gandhi had barged into a party press conference on September 27 and denounced the legislation as “nonsense”. He advanced no argument against its content or motive, which was to shield leaders like Rashtriya Janata Party leader Laloo Prasad from being jailed, as was imminent.

Gandhi’s opposition to the ordinance reflected a sentiment shared by many conscientious citizens, who are appalled that 30 percent of the total of 4,807 MPs and MLAs elected since 2008 self-confessedly face criminal cases. A high 14 percent face serious charges like murder. The ordinance would even shield lawmakers against whom charges have been established.

Yet, the imperious manner in which Gandhi voiced his opposition to it brings him no credit. He could have raised the issue in the party, or blocked the ordinance by appealing to the government. Instead, he went public.

This wasn’t impetuous, but calculated to raise Gandhi’s importance in the Congress by showing that he need not follow rules that apply to ordinary mortals. He is, after all, a fourth-generation descendant of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that many in the Congress believe is exempt from the rules of democratic inner-party debate and decision-making.

This exemption for a particular individual parallels the ordinance, which also sought to exempt a particular category, lawmakers, from criminal laws. This takes some of the shine away from the virtue that Gandhi can claim for acting ‘in the right cause’.

By setting himself up as the Congress’s ‘insider-outsider’ – both as a leadership heir, and as a party critic – Gandhi risks being seen either as downright irresponsible, or as unwilling to do what it takes to lead the party even while assuming a leadership role and declaring, as he did, that India’s next government will be “of the youth”.

Earlier, through the ‘insider-outsider’ stance the newcomer Gandhi earned goodwill from identifying with peasants struggling against the loss of their land, or empathising with Dalits by sharing their food – something few Congressmen would do.

Now, that image is becoming a liability. Gandhi is seen as arrogant and reckless. At a Congress session this past January, where he was promoted as party vice-president, he said, quoting his mother, that “power” is “actually ‘poison’”. But he seems to enjoy power.

Gandhi has also earned discredit for his extravagant claims about his family’s accomplishments. During the 2007 assembly election campaign in Uttar Pradesh, he claimed the Babri Masjid wouldn’t have been demolished had his family been in power. But this ignores the political circumstances and power balances that define the context. Although the BJP cynically exploited them, these were partly of the Congress’ making.

Even worse, he spoke of the “division of Pakistan” in 1971 as a great accomplishment of his family. True, Indira Gandhi handled the chain of events leading to the birth of Bangladesh in a masterly way. But it’s wrong to present it as a ‘family’ accomplishment and celebrate it chauvinistically as Pakistan’s dismemberment rather than as the victory of a valiant liberation struggle.

More important, Gandhi hasn’t lived up to the promise of revitalising the Congress through the ill-chosen instrument of the (largely discredited) Youth Congress. He decided to induct fresh blood into the Youth Congress on the basis of democratic internal elections. These were all rigged, and returned the sons and daughters of established Congress leaders.

Four years ago, Gandhi said: “The hierarchical [dynastic] system exists [in the Congress]. It is a reality. But what is the option before me? I can either propagate the system or change it. I am not the one to propagate it so I am trying to change it… We have to work together to change it.” But the ‘hierarchical system’ continues unchanged.

Similarly, Gandhi crafted the Congress strategy during the last assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. But the Congress’s performance in these, particularly in Bihar, was indifferent. He hasn’t shown aptitude for national-level coalition-building, which holds the key to the coming Lok Sabha elections. The Congress is unlikely to win these on its own.

After the ordinance episode, it’s apparent that Gandhi lacks the maturity, gumption or astuteness needed to become a political game-changer. Nor, going by his own statements, is he ready or willing to play that role or become the Congress’s prime ministerial candidate.

Deplorable as the Congress’s obsession is with the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, and its sycophancy towards it, it has a ‘rational’ self-interest core. Put bluntly, the Congress values the dynasty primarily insofar as it can win them elections, as Indira and Rajiv Gandhi did until the 1980s, and Sonia Gandhi since 2004.

Rahul Gandhi hasn’t passed that test, and seems extremely reluctant even to take it. So the Congress would be ill-advised to look for saviours in individual leaders like him. What the Congress needs is a progressive social and political vision, a good pro-people programme, and new strategies of political mobilisation, social-group coalitions and alliance-building with secular parties. Sadly, these are its weak points.

The Congress is far too compromised by its neoliberal policies and its lukewarm secularism to articulate a vision that’s radically different from the BJP’s. It has at best advocated a compensatory kind of neoliberalism through programmes such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, a rickety Right to Education Act and a diluted food security scheme. It must adopt a more radical stance and give primacy to people’s basic needs, not the market.

The Congress must take on the Sangh Parivar by adopting a staunch secular orientation, expressing solidarity with the victims of communalism, and pursuing investigations against violent groups around Hindutva figures like Amit Shah, Col Shrikant Purohit, Pragya Thakur and RSS national executive member Indresh Kumar.

The public has been told for four years that the Central Bureau of Investigation and National Investigation Agency have ‘strong’ evidence on their involvement in various fake encounters and bomb blasts from Malegaon and Hyderabad to the Samjhauta Express. They must be formally charged and put on trial – although this will be strongly resisted by the Parivar.

The Congress can no longer put together the traditional winning social coalition (the upper castes+Dalits+Muslims) which allowed it to take 40 percent-plus of the national vote in the past. But it can better its 2009 score of 29 percent – only if it strengthens its appeal to the urban and rural poor, and specifically targets under-represented groups like the Most Backward Classes, ‘Maha-Dalits’ and nomadic tribes.

Equally vital would be alliances with regional parties, which can defeat the BJP, including the Janata Dal (United) in Bihar and BSP in UP. A Congress-BSP alliance in UP, with each holding their present seats, and reaching an understanding in the remaining ones, would be potentially a big winner. The Congress needs such serious re-strategising, not pious wishes.

The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and rights activist based in Delhi. Email: prafulbidwai1@yahoo.co.in