Family and the party

Last week’s posturing by the Congress Party, redu-ced to a piti-able strength of 44 in the Lok Sabha, was almost entirely as expected. First the Congress Working Committee rejected “una-nimously” and ostentatiously the resignations of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her son and the party’s vice-president Rahul Gandhi that were surely called for because of the party’s virtual decimation under their leadership. This was followed some days later by Mrs Gandhi’s election as chairperson of the Cong-ress Parliamentary Party for the fifth consecutive time. The CPP also authorised her to name the party’s leaders and chief whips in the two Houses. Some have understandably pointed out that all these proceedings were “pre-scripted”. To me it seems that the more appropriate expression would be “pre-ordained”.

For, the fundamental character of the Congress since the introduction of dynastic rule by Indira Gandhi was driven home to me almost exactly 23 years ago by a very senior leader who held high positions in the party and the government without be-ing able to fulfil his ambition to be Prime Minister. The occasion when the two of us talked was both tragic and suspenseful. Rajiv Gandhi, perceived by the country to be on the comeback trail during the 1991 elections, was assassinated on May 21. The Chief Election Commis-sioner of that day, T.N. Seshan, had postponed the second phase of the poll by a month. The Congress Working Committee was beseeching Mrs Gandhi repeatedly to accept the presidency of the Cong-ress on way to the office of Prime Minister later. Her refusal was firm.

So I asked the senior leader, who did not want to be quoted by name, why they were pestering a grief-stricken lady when there were half a dozen of them anyone of whom could take over the same role.

“You are entirely right,” he replied, “but you fail to realise that the other five would refuse to serve under any one of us, while all six of us will happily serve under a member of the Gandhi family.”
On behalf of the dynasty it is sometimes claimed that it stayed out of the government and party leadership for over seven years. This is only partially and technically true. Mrs Gandhi held no office until March 1998 when she virtually seized the presidency of the Congress from Sitaram Kesri. But her clout in the Congress was always enormous. Indeed, she had the final say in the choice of P.V. Narasimha Rao as Rajiv’s replacement after the then vice-president (later Pre-sident) Shankar Dayal Sharma “gratefully pleaded inability” to accept this heavy responsibility.

It is entirely to her credit that she led the Congress back to power in 2004 when Rahul was elected to the Lok Sabha for the first time.
Since then there has been constant clamour in the Congress that he should be Prime Minister. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister until Monday evening, had repeatedly declared that whenever Mr Gandhi wanted to take over he would be happy to make way.

This brings me to the key point that though not made the Congress’ prime ministerial candidate,
Mr Gandhi was duly declared the man in charge of the party’s election campaign. Had by any miracle the party been able to scrape back to power the kudos heaped on “Rahulji” would have dwarfed the Himalayas. Why then is there this disapproval and even condemnation of those Congressmen who have had the courage to hold him and his “coterie” responsible for the humiliating defeat? The meaning of the growing demand within the party for assigning a greater role to Priyanka Gandhi Vadra should also be clear.

What a joke it is then that the CPP should have passed a resolution ex-pressing its “gratitude” to both Mrs Gandhi and Mr Gandhi for their “indefatigable election campaign”!
Ironically, the resolu-tion runs counter to Mrs Gandhi’s own ad-mission: “We could not gauge the anger against us.” This anger was visible to the naked eye, as were the two main reasons for it — rising prices and gargantuan corruption. But obviously the ruling party’s top leadership on its Oly-mpian heights was living in a make-believe world. Significantly, Jairam Ramesh, a minister and Mr Gandhi’s close advi-ser, has declared: “Naren-dra Modi’s aggressive campaign dealt the knock-out punch to the Congress… We were not prepared for it.”

Is this why Mr Gandhi and even Mrs Vadra were contemptuously denying that there was a “Modi wave”?
Of course, Mr Ramesh does not want any Congress leader to be blamed. But who would listen to him when Mrs Gandhi’s appeal to all her followers to “stop public acrimony” has had little effect.
Two senior Congress leaders, Kishore Chandra Deo and Anil Shastri, are the latest to join the outcry against “spineless creepers” and “inaccessible and arrogant ministers”.

Amarinder Singh, a former chief minister of Punjab and now a Congress MP from Amritsar, is engaged in a war with the Punjab PCC chief, Partap Singh Bajwa. Moreover, he has publicly blamed Dr Manmohan Singh for “turning a blind eye” to corruption in his government. Such examples can be multiplied manifold.

Mrs Gandhi has declared that in cooperation with “like-minded parties” the Congress would be an “aggressive and watchful” Opposition. Her denun-ciation of the Bharatiya Janata Party for advocating that disruption of Parliament was legitimate is a good sign.
It is time Parliament should cease to be dysfunctional. However, the Congress Party’s main task is at the grassroots across the country to reinvent itself. For the number of states where it has failed to capture a single seat has increased ominously.

What should worry it even more is that the only two seats it has won in Uttar Pradesh are Rae Bareli and Amethi. The situation is similar in Bihar. The Grand Old Party has ceased to be grand. Let it not cease to be a party.