Shantanu Thakur (thakur.santanu@gmail.com)
Years ago, around the time when Rajeev Gandhi was being groomed for the successor position in the Congress hierarchy, MV Kamath, the then editor of The Illustrated Weekly of India (1978 to 1981), had written a piece titled “Who needs Rajeev Gandhi?” The article made some intriguing observations. Curiously, a similar thought has been in my mind lately: what have you got in Rahul Gandhi? Rajeev Gandhi did, of course, go on to become the PM; the fate of RajGa is, however, uncertain. In today’s language, where it’s trendy to shorten Narendra Modi to NaMo, it would be fitting to also shorten Rahul Gandhi to RaGa. Interestingly, both acronyms carry overtones – the first one of a religious kind and the second of an inherited legacy, like the Indian classical ragas.
We septuagenarians were born in independent India when the personality of Jawaharlal Nehru was all-pervasive. We learnt that he was a freedom fighter, a scholar, and a historian as well as a leader respected worldwide. He had definitely earned his credentials by virtue of merit, not by entitlement. His image as Chacha Nehru also helped endear him to us children then. As adults, we could appreciate his vision for a new-born nation and his sincerity in giving shape to it. Nehru also emerged as a democrat who believed in the foundations of democracy. Nehru earned his aura of prestige and charisma; it was not imposed on him.
Dynastic entitlement seems to have made entry with the coronation of Indira Gandhi, but she had her strengths to stand on. Though mocked by a section of the old guard initially as a ‘gungi gudiya’, she soon silenced them completely with her grit and determination. Indira Gandhi possessed charisma, possibly even greater than that of Nehru, which prompted MF Hussain to suggest a comparison to the goddess Durga. She displayed excellent leadership during the liberation struggle ending in the birth of Bangladesh. The emergency destroyed much of her reputation, but it also firmly established the foundations of utter sycophancy within her party and organisation. The party continues to breathe under the same climate of dynasty worship far after Indira Gandhi has passed into history. But it has to be said that she was a leader in her own right and might have steered the country for a long period of time. She had earned her spurs. But the period also reminds one of the hot-headed rampage of an unelected Sanjay Gandhi, who rode roughshod over the system as an extra-constitutional seat of power during the Emergency. Those were the times when we first heard the terms ‘coterie’ and ‘kitchen cabinet’.
When Rajeev Gandhi had to be reluctantly brought in, he was indeed viewed by many with promise and positivity (remember the metaphors of a “clean slate” and the dream of a young man). His tenure witnessed the telephone revolution, backed by his friend Sam Pitroda. He gave us the Assam Accord. Its failure to produce all the expected goals was partly due to reasons other than his indifference. Rajeev Gandhi had a fan following that liked him for his initial hope of promise. The Bofors scandal significantly tarnished his reputation, and his tragic assassination marked the end of that chapter. But he was somewhat more than an entitled dynast.
The GOP now appears to have returned to a vulnerable point in its chain. So back to my question, what have you got in Rahul Gandhi? Does he carry the enlightened scholarship of Jawaharlal? Nehru’s international image? Does he display the leadership qualities of Indira Gandhi, but not her grace? Does he even have the suave civility of a Rajeev Gandhi? Frankly speaking, one rather notices the rogue qualities of Uncle Sanjay Gandhi in him. How can one forget the picture of Rahul Gandhi tearing apart a Cabinet decision made by his own PM in full public view? Even Sanjay Gandhi wouldn’t have gone that far. The arrogance that stems from a feudal entitlement culture seems to plague him. Perhaps he is unaware of it himself. And now, the same man tries to project himself as the sole guardian of the Constitution of India. Despite being an MP for several terms, he has hardly displayed consistency in policy or a vision for the nation. Mere election manifestos, hurriedly done up by ghostwriters, don’t make up for policy. Nor has he been able so far to give his party successful election victories. His presence in the scene is for the simple fact that the party has not yet learnt to come out of the camp of abject sycophancy and cannot see beyond the family. Several capable leaders in the party have already deserted the camp. Only a handful may remain, but they appear to go unnoticed. The colonial hangover lingers among our countrymen, and the Gandhi name continues to resonate in certain corners. This is what keeps this fourth-generation scion afloat, not by virtue, but by default in a subservient mind-set.
This is not to say that all is well in our country under the present dispensation. There is discontent in several sections of society that is beginning to show. The entire opposition camp is attempting to join the chorus of loud street protests. Most Indians who believe in a healthy democracy also want a healthy, effective opposition. But, apart from optics and street protests, the electorate would also like to see what better governance model the Opposition has to offer. Mere vehemence to overthrow the Modi government doesn’t show what they have to offer, which Modi has failed to deliver. Ironically, the feeling in some quarters is that the kind of protests Rahul Gandhi has kept himself busy with, in turn, helps to strengthen Modi’s position. For some reason or another, Rahul Gandhi doesn’t register as a worthwhile, serious contender. The name Gandhi alone is no longer enough. What concrete policy does he have for the disenchanted youth of the country, apart from just egging them on to protest? If the Opposition is serious, they must organise their own troubled house and clearly articulate their vision and strategy. If RaGa, as he stands today, is being projected as a PM option, then, I am afraid, there won’t be many takers for it except those steeped in naivety.
Curb your senses and your mind and see the Lord within your heart
— Adi Shankaracharya