By Swapan Dasgupta
Last Thursday and Friday, reinvigorated after nearly
a month-long absence from public life, Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi
undertook a necessary chore: he presided over an in-camera inquest. Ideally,
the hearings should have been held in Lucknow, the scene of the debacle.
However, since the defeat was also viewed as evidence of the people’s perfidy, the
choice of Delhi was inevitable. In this age of democracy where people rise
above their station, it isn’t possible to denounce the underlings as “sacks of
potatoes”, as Karl Marx did. But the snub to UP was there for all to see.
It is early to say whether or not the regulated
bloodletting over two days served any tangible purpose. Congress politicians
are astute beings. They know there is a Lakshman rekha they cannot cross. Like
salesmen appearing before the top boss to explain their failure to meet sales
targets, they can at best point an accusing finger at their zonal supervisors.
They will not say that the overall marketing strategy was all wrong and, worse,
that the product they were to sell was flawed and had few takers. The owner can
never be wrong; he is invariably let down by unworthy underlings.
Consequently, if media reports are anything to go
by, Rahul has promised to take firm action against the errant and redouble
efforts to bolster the party organisation—to which Rahul had been devoting his
unceasing attention since 2009. The template prescription is reminiscent of
what Theodre H. White, the chronicler of US presidential elections had to say
about Senator Barry Goldwater’s disastrous performance against President Lyndon
Johnson in 1964: “The organisation of Goldwater’s campaign in Washington and
across the country was absolutely first class, except that it reminded one of
the clay mock-ups of the new models in Detroit’s automobile industry. It was
meticulously designed, hand-sanded, striking in appearance—but it had no
motor.”
In today’s context, the lack of a motor is the
equivalent of not possessing a big idea. Apart from suggesting that young
people should join politics, that good people should join politics, that Nandan
Nilekani’s magic wand will do away with all the imperfections of the money ‘we’
dole out from Delhi and that the blood of Indira Gandhi runs through his veins,
there is very little that Rahul has to offer either the country or the voters
of any state. There may be a certain charm to saying the same thing from
Kashmir to Kannyakumari but if the overall message is anodyne, it is hardly
surprising that it falls flat.
Perhaps Rahul should start addressing some of the
issues that agitate most Indians: the state of the economy, the problems of
corruption, the pressures of federalism, the Naxalite menace, environmental
concerns and India’s place in the world. He also needs to address questions about
the UPA Government. He can hardly pretend that the Congress is detached from
the Government it heads.
Rahul has been tutored on these subjects and more by
some of India’s most famous Congress-inclined intellectuals. It’s time he
unveiled the results of his learning. It may actually help Indians to assess
the basis of the Congress’ projection of him as India’s next prime minister.
Yet, and to be fair, Rahul has at least tried in his
limited way to address concerns arising from the Congress’ poor performance in
UP last month. At least the crestfallen Congress candidates who travelled to
Delhi last week can have the satisfaction of knowing that there was someone to
listen to their tales of woe and, maybe, even do something about it. Allowing
activists the space to let off steam is one of the functions of leadership. To
that limited extent, Rahul has fulfilled an elementary obligation.
The same can hardly be said of the BJP leadership
which has reacted to the defeat in UP, the setback in Uttarakhand and the loss
of seats in Punjab by doing absolutely nothing. Even without the benefit of any
organised feedback, the BJP appears to have blamed its failure in UP to the
very same factors that the Congress identified: lack of organisational rigour,
internal faction fights, uninspiring local leadership and the failure to emerge
as a credible alternative. And like the Congress, it has also conveniently
sidestepped the issue of the lack of a big picture.
If the electorate is clueless as to what Rahul
stands for, it is equally mystified about what the BJP is all about. Like
misguided Keynesians who imagine that digging holes constitute productive
endeavour, a section of the BJP seems to believe that activity for its own sake
constitutes good politics. An even more deluded section seems to further
believe that generous funding alone can win elections—a belief that has blunted
the edge of the party campaign against the Congress’ mega-sleaze. There is just
no concern about the fact that there has been no consequential flow of new
blood into the party (except perhaps in Gujarat and Goa) since 2004. Rahul has
at least tried to get new people interested in politics; the BJP has been
content being a self-perpetuating cabal.
For both the national parties, the crisis is not of
organisation shortcoming and factional restlessness. These are the consequences
of the failure to grasp that ideas (as opposed to doctrinaire ideology) have a
role in politics.
Sunday Pioneer, April 8, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment