How to spot a sacrifice

Ravinder Kaur simplifies the language of martyrdom and high morality

There have been many political and journalistic opinions about Sonia Gandhi8217;s resignation from the Lok Sabha. Writers have debated the timing and/or the magnanimity of her sacrifice. The pro-Sonia writers have painted it as yet another glorious example of her putting ethics before her own selfish interest and of 8220;doing the right thing8221;. The anti-Sonia brigade sees it as yet another calculated move to garner political capital out of a no-win situation. Others have pointed out that the 8220;not for profit8221; National Advisory Council gave her a position more powerful and visible than that of the prime minister, allowing her access to government files and endless free publicity, a factor which will be of immense value when she fights for her re-election.

A high moral ground has often been attributed to Sonia Gandhi by her supporters. Earlier when she chose not to become PM, and spoke of her inner voice; now again when she has chosen to lay down office. Can one allow the language of sacrifice and high morality, even of martyrdom, to be used so lightly?

In such times, for an ordinary citizen not so concerned about the daily shenanigans of politicians, a moment arrives when he/she wants to 8220;know8221; the truth of the person being so anointed. The layperson needs to have a method to sift through political posturing and gamesmanship. Are such sacrifices political or moral? How can one decide whether Sonia is simply yet another shrewd politician who possesses the hidden political acumen of playing 8220;masterstrokes8221; for long-run gain or whether there is a genuine person behind all this who agonises about doing the right thing, and of doing it in the interest of the people, whatever the cost to her own interests?

Of that other Gandhi, the Mahatma, one was rarely in doubt. He laid his life8217;s experiments open to the country and took unpopular stands, one of which ultimately resulted in his death. People may have called him shrewd but none doubted that it was not for his own personal gain that he took the steps that he did. He was experimenting with a certain idea of politics, exploring the possibility and limits of ethical politics. For him, the ethical framework for action had to precede the action. His framework was oriented to the people of this country, to India, not as a nation or as a political entity, but to its various peoples, old and young, poor and rich, of different religions, castes and communities. The objects of his love were the people of India. The personal value informing his philosophy was that of speaking and acting the truth. His actions lay at the intersection of these two points.

There was clarity in Gandhi8217;s own mind regarding these coordinates which gave him a guide to his actions. His philosophy was transparent, through his writings and his public cogitations.

Can we say this for any politician today? Can we say this for Sonia Gandhi, the only Indian politician for whom the language of self-sacrifice and greatness is being deployed? Can we get at her mind through any set of consistent actions since there are no writings and her speeches are written by others or utterances in order to gauge whether there is a personal philosophy, of any sort, behind her actions? If we cannot, then we do not have the right to put an ordinary politician on a morally superior pedestal. Our guide to assessing the truth of a politician should be through our ability to decipher some kind of framework within which that person8217;s actions take place. One could do it for a JP, or a Lohia; I do not believe we are able to do it for Sonia Gandhi.

Since her utterances are not her own, let us try to assess her actions. What has she tried to do for the people of India? It is true that she had certain good deeds in mind when she won the last election. Like any reasonably decent person in India, she wished to clean up the bureaucracy, weed out corruption, reduce poverty and unemployment, and bring health and education to the people. She appointed an able PM to give credibility to these desires. She created a National Advisory Council full of the right sort of people who would help her achieve her goals. All good women and men they are.

Story continues below this ad

However, we don8217;t know much about the actual initiatives or their success. One can confidently assert that not much has been achieved on the reduction in corruption among either politicians or bureaucrats. Nor has Sonia Gandhi or her government set any shining example that sets her apart. Indeed, we continue to have the usual quota of scams and flip-flops on political issues requiring an ethical stand, whether it be the Bihar election or the Natwar Singh case or the retention of charge-sheeted ministers. No one has yet declared a fast-unto-death to force some ethicality into politics. On health, education, and other such noble goals, the Congress has continued earlier policies; indeed it is hard to have any grandstanding on these issues.

So are we left with any simple way to decipher morality in politics? I think we are left with one key principle 8212; has this person/politician taken even one unpopular stand, justified it in terms of principles and stood by it, irrespective of the consequences? Let each person in the country judge for themselves whether such a Gandhi any longer exists.

Ravinder Kaur is associate professor, department of humanities and social sciences, at IIT, Delhi