As the Congress flounders for direction and leadership, there is little recognition that the real crisis is not so much Ms Sonia Gandhi’s political acts of omission and commission, as the yawning disjunction between her true face and the rhetoric of her spin-doctors. This is why the “crisis of confidence” as Mr Vasant Sathe so evocatively calls it, continues to dog the party even when there are no elections round the corner and no real challenge to the Signora in the shape of a formidable contender for the post of party president. Yet it is a fact that the Congress high command lacks the confidence to conduct party elections and has repeatedly been postponing the polls on some weak pretext or other.
I have consistently argued that the core crisis in the Congress is ideological, and that partymen as a whole are as much responsible for this state of affairs as its principal helmsman
(The Pioneer, April 25). The verbal salvos aimed at the Signora would indicate that far from shirking responsibility, thinking Congressmen are actually trying to redress the situation as best they can. Given the party’s character and spirit, they cannot directly address themselves to filling the ideological vacuum; that problem will continue to dog the party for some time more. But they can strive to metamorphose Ms Sonia Gandhi’s style of functioning and change the composition of the courtiers around her, so that the party is no longer so divorced from ground realities and grassroots workers.
Having carefully measured Ms Gandhi’s abilities and performance in nearly three years of public life, Congressmen have found her severely wanting in critical respects. With the ground daily slipping beneath their feet, they have decided to rein her in before she completely ruins the party, making it truly impossible for them to come to power in the next 50 years. This task is being accomplished with admirable courage and determination – Ms Gandhi is being surrounded by friends and well-wishers, and subjected to polite and indirect,
though pointed, interlocution and criticism.
What Congressmen are seeking to accomplish is a Magna Carta. Faced with a leader who refuses to grow or go, they have decided to define the limits of her authority by asserting the “general will” of the party. It is a wise move, and can go a long way in stemming the current rot in the party provided it is accompanied by greater honesty in assessing the Signora herself, and not limited to merely increasing access to her (though this is also important).
My point is that if Congressmen truly wish to resolve the question mark over the party’s survival as a credible political party, they will have to deconstruct the ludicrous myths around Ms Gandhi, or remain prey to the “confusion” and “mental depression” diagnosed by Mr Sathe. Indeed, Mr Sathe’s seemingly controversial article in the April issue of Congress’ Sandesh, though a handsome effort to exonerate the Signora for the party’s current plight, makes a good starting point.
The first, of course, is the fiction that Ms Gandhi was never keen to lead the Congress after Rajiv’s demise and had valiantly resisted the efforts of top party leaders for a number of years; that she is shy and reserved, and uninterested in politics. This should be read in conjunction with her famed statement that she “fought like a tigress” against Rajiv’s agreeing to become Prime Minister in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination. What always struck me about this statement was the sheer dishonesty, hypocrisy, and egotism which laced it. Fate has now sent it back to haunt Ms Gandhi with vengeance.
It is high time that Congressmen admit that with Rajiv’s demise, Ms Gandhi viewed herself as the party’s principal regent and sole legitimate source of authority; and took more than a casual interest in its affairs. Dissidence against Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao was frankly encouraged, and the campaign for Mr Rao to give up the party presidentship blatantly conducted by her supporters. In fact, when the party formally split, the leaders of the breakaway faction paid a courtesy call on her before announcing the formation of the Congress-T. Its principal proponents are key members of her inner coterie today.
An analysis of her carefully calibrated entry into Congress as “primary member” followed by her swift elevation to “star campaigner” similarly shows excessive calculation, rather than a natural reserve. As I understand it, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s failure to win support for his 13-day Government, followed by the fall of the United Front regimes which necessitated the elections of 1998; gave Ms Gandhi the false impression that the time was ripe for her debut as India’s first foreign-born Prime Minister. It was this calculation, rather than an altruistic desire to save Congress from the rash of desertions then depleting its ranks, that galvanised her to action.
Press reports in this period clearly reveal that even as key functionaries at the party headquarters believed that Ms Gandhi’s electoral presence would be confined to addressing token rallies in some key towns, the lady and her coterie had already worked out an ambitious
takeover plan. The election saw the humiliating sidelining of the party president Mr Sitaram Kesri, while the Signora took charge as “sole campaigner”. However, the Congress’ performance remained as it was under Mr PV Narasimha Rao. Meanwhile, Ms Gandhi remained mum about whom she “fought” to enter politics, but went on to undo her “shy” image by physically ousting the octogenarian Mr Kesri from his office at 24, Akbar Road, and taking charge as Congress president.
It has taken the failure of Ms Gandhi’s bulldozing tactics to become Prime Minister last April, followed by the precipitous decline in the Congress tally of 1999, for her coterie to realize that it was a mistake to project her “‘charismatic capacity to single-handedly get the masses of India to vote the Congress to power”. Her lustreless performance as Leader of the Opposition has added to their anxiety. It is truly astounding that so long after Mr Bill Clinton’s visit, not only has Ms Gandhi avoided clarifying what she actually told him (even if she now feels she made a mistake), but she has also failed to enunciate her party’s policy on the nuclear question. As for the Congress’ stand on economic reforms and the phasing out of subsidies, it deserves more serious treatment than the current comedy of errors between the Signora and the former Finance Minister.
The crux of the crisis facing the Congress is Ms Gandhi’s intellectual incapability to comprehend, let alone meaningfully contribute to, the major issues and challenges facing the nation. At the same time, the political courtesy calls she makes upon Mr Rao and Mr Kesri whenever she perceives a threat to her position clearly demonstrate her tenacity towards her office. Congressmen are masters in deciphering signs and symbols. They have rightly concluded that she will not make way for another leader; yet for them to depose her would involve a fundamental restructuring of the pillars upon which the party rests. This is something they are as yet ill prepared for, as extricating the political legacy of leaders (all former prime ministers) as different as Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi from the dynastic principle hitherto legitimized by the party, can be a tricky business. The strategy of surrounding the leader and forcing her to concede the majority viewpoint is far less fraught with danger. What is more, it may just work.
Pioneer, 23 May 2000