Dynastic liability

It is by now quite clear that a majority of Congress MPs are not in favour of destabilising the Gujral Ministry lest they be forced to face an early poll. It is comprehensible that Sonia Gandhi, who seems to exercise greater control over the party than the party chief himself, may not like a situation where the Congress props up a government in which the DMK is a key player. But as long as she is afraid of coming out in the open and leading the party surely to disaster not many MPs may be inclined to subscribe to her viewpoint. Thus, if she really wants her opinion to prevail in the party, she can no longer pull strings from behind the scenes. She will perforce have to come out of hiding and face all the attendant political and personal risks. And if she thinks that she can get away with manipulating Kesri as she has done in the past, she is sadly mistaken.

One thing that Congressmen expect in their leader is his or her ability to get them votes. Indira Gandhi and, before her, Nehru could ensure them votes. Rajiv Gandhi was a total failure in this regard. His victory in the 1984 election when he won a massive mandate was a fluke — the benefit of a sympathy wave following the assassination of his mother.

In the subsequent election, the Congress was virtually wiped out in several states and lost power at the Centre too. The party’s performance in 1991 would have been the worst ever but for Rajiv’s tragic death, which dramatically tilted the scales in the party’s favour. If this is the worth of the dynasty, what difference can a foreigner-turned-Indian make to the fortunes of the party? More so, when evidence suggests that Rajiv Gandhi’s own foolhardiness was as much responsible for his tragic death as those whom the Jain Commission pinpoints in its voluminous report.