Tags:
Journalism of Courage
A Congress worker born in 1998 — the year Sonia Gandhi took over as party president — may not have seen a party president outside the Gandhi family. She may have heard about the times the party was not headed by the family, the numerous theories about how those stints were ‘disastrous’ and how only a Gandhi can hold the grand old party together. All this while, all the young Congress worker would have seen is a steady exodus of leaders — young and old, and at all levels.
Among those who have left the party include former chief ministers, former Union ministers, former state Congress presidents and office bearers — both at the national and state level.
Now, in the backdrop of another high-profile exit – that of senior leader Ghulam Nabi Azad – the Congress has announced the schedule for the much-anticipated election for the post of party president.
While Rahul Gandhi is not keen to contest, he, it seems, does not want anybody from the family to helm the party either. If he walks the talk, the Congress could end up seeing a person from outside the family head the party after a gap of 24 years. In a way, it is an opportunity for Rahul to dispel the perception – one that is not without basis — that the Congress is a proprietary concern of the family.
But this is a minefield that Rahul will have to navigate deftly. The Gandhis may step aside from the leadership role and let a family loyalist take over – be it Ashok Gehlot, Meira Kumar, Mallikarjun Kharge or Mukul Wasnik. But that president, like Azad said in his resignation letter, will always be seen as a puppet on a string, and end up ruining the very purpose behind Rahul’s decision to stay out of the leadership race.
The other way the Gandhis could go about this is to keep themselves out, maintain an arm’s length from the election. They could make a point by not signing the nomination papers of any leader, thereby sending a signal that they are not endorsing or throwing their weight behind any candidate.
The other possibility – and this could be toughest for the Gandhis to do – would be to let the party undergo a churn and let a leader, veteran or young, emerge.
The strongest proponents of the ‘Gandhi for president’ idea point to how the stints of recent non-Gandhi presidents have not been among the most glorious chapters in the party’s history. In the last 75 years since Independence, the party has had 12 outsiders and five members of the Nehru-Gandhi family as presidents.
Among the non-Gandhi presidents, while there were stalwarts such as K Kamaraj who blazed a trail, there were also the die-hard loyalists like Dev Kant Barooah, known more for his “Indira is India, India is Indira” proclamation.
But comparing the Congress of now with the party of Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi days would be misplaced. In Indira and Rajiv, the Congress had leaders who were charismatic vote-catchers. Complementing them were powerful satraps in states who could win states on their own, stand up to the leadership and even breakaway and survive. The Congress now lacks both.
While the electoral slide may have begun in the 1980s, the organisational downswing began much earlier. Since the split of the Congress in 1969, the Gandhis have loomed large, not letting a non-family president assert or carve a niche for himself and the party. The 1991 to 1998 period was the first – and only time – that the Gandhis were not in politics.
The stints of P V Narasimha Rao and Sitaram Kesri saw the party suffering repeated splits. But the Congress was still the main pole in Indian politics. The splinters always carried the ‘Congress’ tag — be it Trinamool Congress, Tamil Maanila Congress, Nationalist Congress Party or even, as late as in 2011, the YSR Congress Party. The initial years of Sonia, too, saw the party splitting with Sharad Pawar, Tariq Anwar and P S Sangma forming the NCP. But things stabilised soon after.
Since 1998, the party has fast metamorphosed into a family concern.
Post 2014, the Congress has not suffered a split in the true sense of the word. Instead, amid a series of electoral setbacks, a string of leaders have walked out of the party. Given the continuous exits and the repeated defeats, it is perhaps the best opportunity for Rahul and the family to redefine the party and make the GOP’s functioning and decision-making democratic in every sense – rid it of the coterie culture and not see themselves as zamindars anymore.
It is perhaps time to learn a mix of lessons from history.
