There are times when several crucial developments coincide. This is what happened around the time the country was showering praise on Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his highly skilled and unscripted maiden speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort. In the badly beaten and bruised Congress Party, the former defence minister, Mr A.K. Antony, who is Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s most loyal and trusted confidant, submitted to her a voluminous report on the worst ever defeat the party suffered in the recent Lok Sabha elections. On the other side of the fence, the new Bharatiya Janata Party president, Mr Amit Shah, announced the composition of his carefully chosen team notable for three reasons: a greater representation to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh than before; a large representation to the politically key state of Uttar Pradesh as well as to Maharashtra, Haryana, Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir that will soon elect their Assemblies; and a lowering of the average age of the team in pursuance of Mr Modi’s message to build up India in tune with the aspirations of the young.
Should Mrs Gandhi and Mr Antony care to glance at the list of the BJP’s vice presidents, sanghathan mantris, general secretaries, secretaries and spokespersons, they would be embarrassed to find that some of these office bearers are former Congressmen or Congress’ allies. Within the saffron camp discussion is confined to the dropping from the list of general secretaries of Varun Gandhi whose mother, Maneka Gandhi is a minister in Mr Modi’s Cabinet, and inclusion among vice presidents of B.S. Yeddyurappa, a former chief minister of Karnataka, who was forced to resign because of charges of corruption and had therefore quit the BJP and formed a party of his own.
Meanwhile, Mr Modi has quietly ordered all ministers, except Rajnath Singh, Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj, to visit the BJP headquarters once every week to interact with party leaders, now headed by his own right hand man. As several newspapers have reported, the Prime Minister also sent for the son of a senior minister and tersely told him to “return the money he had received” to help someone to get transferred to the post of his choice! No names have been mentioned by any newspaper but Delhi’s grapevine is abuzz with the minister’s identity.
Let us now turn to the troubled goings on within the Congress that could have far reaching repercussions. As so often in the past, so at present the Antony report is for the Congress president’s “eyes only”. But this time around this restriction is not being accepted by the party ranks and even fairly senior leaders. Many of them are demanding openly that the document be made available to them and a larger number are doing so sotto voce. Even more importantly sharp criticism of Rahul Gandhi’s leadership or lack of it is no longer voiced confidentially. Many Congress Party members, including former ministers and senior leaders have spoken out publicly and even loudly. Those like the former Union minister of state, Milind Deora, who concentrated their fire on Mr Gandhi’s “advisers”, have got away with it. But several others, including a Rajasthan MLA Bhanwar Lal Sharma who called the Congress vice-president “the MD (managing director) of a bunch of jokers” or like T.H. Mustafa from Kerala who suggested that Mr Gandhi “should either resign or be removed” have been suspended from the party summarily.
On the day Mr Gandhi famously rushed to the well of the House to demand an immediate discussion on the alarming increase in communal violence, his supporters thought that he would now “lead from the front”. Ironically, they are now doubly disappointed because he refused to accept their repeated entreaties to speak during the debate on the subject.
In these dismal and chaotic circumstances, Mr Antony had a dilemma of his own. He was firm on ensuring the secrecy of his report. But then how to let the country learn of his firm conclusion that “Rahul cannot be held responsible for the Congress defeat in any way”? So instead of leaking a portion of the report he straightforwardly gave an interview to a newspaper. He did not mince his words. “All those who love the Congress,” he said, “believe in the leadership of Mrs Gandhi and Mr Gandhi. They are our leaders and they will continue to lead us.” This surely represents the feelings of all those who believe that without a member of the Gandhi dynasty leading the Congress, it would “disintegrate”. But when asked about current discontent with the leadership, he dismissed it by declaring: “Many of those who are criticising the leadership have left the party or are on their way out.” Couldn’t this exodus turn from a trickle into a torrent some day? The question is pertinent because since the Con-gress Working Comm-ittee summarily rejected the resignations offered by mother and son, the “high command” has done precious little. In 1963, the Congress lost three prestigious byelections to the Lok Sabha. Jawaharlal Nehru immediately summoned the All-India Congress Committee to take corrective measures. Indira Gandhi did the same when the Congress’ majority in Parliament slumped.
One part of Mr Antony’s report makes sound sense. Since the Congress leadership had converted the latest general election into a contest between secularism and communalism, its own secular credentials were more rhetorical than real. The voters perceived it as “minority appeasement”. Mrs Gandhi’s ill-advised meeting with the Imam of Jama Masjid was a self inflicted wound.
There is also a fundamental contradiction in the Congress that has to be resolved. Dynasty may well be the only glue to keep the party together. But dynastic succession and inner-party democracy cannot co-exist. In Nehru’s days Congress chief ministers were men of stature and he respected the federal structure. Indira Gandhi started the practice of “nominating” lightweight loyalists to head state governments. Her daughter in law did the same. No wonder the Congress lost state after state.
