The reluctant politician

So they suspended the man who dared to call a spade a spade. But that’s no surprise: very few political parties practice any kind of inner-party democracy, and the Congress even more so. So T.H. Mustafa, former minister in the Kerala government, was thrown out of the party for saying that the Congress’ poor show was due to vice-president Rahul Gandhi. As it happens, it wasn’t just Mr Mustafa; the Kerala unit of the Congress itself came out with a resolution which said that “the party failed to project a strong enough leader to lead the country as it had done in the past”. The ones passing this resolution were heavyweights of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee like chief minister Ooomen Chandy, former Union minister K.V. Thomas, senior leader P.C. Chacko and all newly-elected Congress MPs from the state (except Shashi Tharoor).

But heavyweights become heavyweights by doing constant balancing acts. So soon after their act of defiance, the Kerala leaders had a sudden attack of cold feet and the resolution was changed to, “despite all odds Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi showed the courage to give a brave leadership for the party in the elections”. You could say that this was brilliantly done: real feelings were conveyed yet nothing negative went on record. Mr Mustafa, though, stuck to his guns, made his comments public and knowing that his days in the party were numbered, didn’t stop just at blaming Mr Gandhi: he called him a joker; then for good measure he asked for Priyanka Gandhi Vadra to replace Mr Gandhi.

Mr Mustafa, though right in his main criticism of blaming the Congress leadership for the party’s defeat, was wrong on several others. To start with, he could have named Mr Gandhi as the chief cause of the Congress debacle at a closed-door party meeting. Having done that, he should have stopped instead of making his joker and Priyanka comments. By these he not only harmed his own interests, but he also nipped in the bud the debate he could have started within the Congress and which really did need to happen.

Most serious political analysts will agree that Mr Gandhi is most emphatically not a joker. He is an earnest young man, whose motivation is honourable, in fact more honourable than that of most people who enter the profession. Like his father and his mother, he is a reluctant politician who went into politics to seemingly answer a call of duty. The usual motivations — ambition or making money or both, seemed absent. This is why he has been such a reluctant leader.

But you can’t be a reluctant leader forever. Yet Mr Gandhi was that for almost 10 years! Projected to be the Congress’ spearhead almost from the beginning of the first term of United Progressive Alliance, he remained the withdrawn prince almost to the end of UPA-2. Only in the last few months when elections were imminent, and Narendra Modi was blazing his way across the country, did Mr Gandhi assert himself and take on the mantle waiting for him. By then it was too little, too late.

The reasons for Congress’ massive defeat are well-known but some of them at least need repetition, because the party has decided to face defeat by turning its face away from some bitter truths. This is being wilful, obstinate and ultimately self-destructive to deal with disaster. And what are these bitter truths? To start with, Manmohan Singh should have been given an honourable exit route in UPA-2 when it became evident that he was unable to deal with the blackmailing tactics of Congress allies like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

If, as everyone confidently alleges, Mrs Gandhi called all the shots, she could easily have shown Dr Singh the door politely (“Plead ill health, Manmohanji”). Then Mr Gandhi could have been anointed, because if Mr Gandhi were to take over, the takeover had to happen halfway through UPA-2. In those two to three years, he could have shown his mettle. Or the lack of it — which incidentally is what everyone assumes now anyway. So there is no way he could have done worse by taking over the prime ministership at that juncture.

Given the current scenario, there is really only one solution to the Congress’ problems, which is that Mr Gandhi should become the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Here he has a chance to become visible on a daily basis, to challenge the Modi government on its missteps (which are bound to occur) and to spell out as he goes along, the Congress’ larger vision for India. Working behind the scenes to revamp the party is an excuse which will no longer work.

Mr Gandhi must be seen and heard; he should be assertive without being aggressive. His advisers should have him well prepared on issues that will come up in the future so that he is perceived as holding a firm grip on all policy matters. There is really no other way to overcome the hugely negative image that now envelops and strangles him.

It’s also time to lay the Priyanka Gandhi myth to rest. She may have the charisma, which people think Mr Gandhi lacks, but her reluctance to enter politics is even more pronounced than Mr Gandhi’s. So why is everyone trying to drag a reluctant princess to replace a reluctant prince?

An even more important factor is that her entry would only add to the criticism of the Congress’ dynasty syndrome. Even more crucially, Ms Vadra has zero experience of politics, whereas Mr Gandhi has at least faced the hurly burly of it in the last few months.

Without a full frontal confrontation of these facts — and the solutions that follow — the Congress will continue to flounder. If these facts are not faced, its only hope will then rest on the Narendra Modi government not delivering on the high expectations of the electorate. But you don’t succeed in life by praying for other people’s failures.

The writer is a senior journalist