Given the change in the tone and tenor of Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi's speech at yesterday's All India Congress Committee session in Delhi at least one thing can be said: the Gandhi scion seems to be making a serious personal effort to reinvent himself and his party.
We need to ask how real this effort is, but let us first discuss the positives in his speech therapy for demoralised party workers.
His belligerent and loud address showed that he wants to measure up to Narendra Modi's natural aggression in politics. His attempt to speak about the party rather than the family (at least yesterday) showed that he understood that the dynasty isn't the answer to the nation's problems. His harkback to the grand vision of the Congress party as a big tent under which all Indians could live in harmony underlined the fact that ultimately political parties have to have a larger purpose beyond just grabbing power. And he signalled a small shift towards inner party democracy when he talked about allowing local party organisations in 15 constituencies to elect their own candidates instead of their being imposed from above.
The logical conclusion from his speech and reasoning is this: the dynasty must start taking a back seat in order to make the Congress more democratic. And since a Congress brought up on sycophancy and dynasty worship cannot do that itself, the only way to ensure inner party democracy is for the dynasty and abdicate – i.e. move out of positions of power in both party and government.
Rahul at the AICC meet. AFP.
In fact, he gave the lie to all his holy democratic assertions when he demanded – and got - three additional subsidised LPG cylinders for households. "There is another thing which the entire country, especially women are concerned, that is nine (gas) cylinders aren't enough, we need 12 cylinders," The Financial Express quotes him as saying.
This one episode in an orchestrated Congress show punctured Rahul's entire effort to reinvent himself and the party. It defeated every intent of his speech by pointing out that change can only come from the top – not below.
Let us microanalyse the implications of this 12-cylinder charge of Rahul. Firstpost reported two weeks ago that the number of subsidised cylinders may be raised to 12 and discussions were on between the finance and oil ministries on this. But when Rahul Gandhi orchestrates a demand in front of TV cameras, the discussion ends and the demand is instantly conceded.
Rahul said: "I appeal to the Prime Minister to raise the bar of LPG usage from nine cylinders to 12 cylinders." But does the PM say he will consider it? No, it is Moily who jumps in to respond: "Yes, the cap will be increased." The PM is obviously a cipher when it comes to cabinet decisions. The cabinet itself is a cipher sometimes – as was evident when Rahul made his "nonsense" comment on the cabinet decision to issue an ordinance to protect convicted politicians from disqualification.
This cylinder subsidy decision, which flies in the face of long-term economic sense, shows that Rahul cares two hoots about economics. It also speaks much for the party's government that it meekly accepts any decision coming from the high command. Neither Manmohan Singh nor P Chidambaram, both alleged reformer, has a say in this anymore. From six in 2012, the cylinder cap went up to nine and now will go up the 12 just because Rahul wants it.
It is also worth questioning some of Rahul's other grandstanding statements.
Talking about the recent defeat of his party, Rahul said: "(What) does it mean for us as a political party? It means responding to the immense demand for political and governmental reform in the revolutionary and dynamic way that only the Congress party is capable of doing…We do not respond by proposing over simplified non-solutions. We do not respond by subverting democratic institutions and blocking parliament sessions year after year, day after day. We do not respond by turning people against one another. We do not respond by lighting the fires of communal hatred. We do not respond by proposing either that the structures of democracy be handed over to one man or that they be viciously destroyed."
High rhetoric this. But does even one Congressman believe this statement to be true? Not dividing people – what is frequent talk about minority quotas all about? As for subverting democratic institutions, has he forgotten that his own gramdma suspended civil liberties in 1975 under her internal emergency? As for turning people against one another, are the Assam riots of 2012 not a reminder of communal killings presided over by his own party?
Consider the irony of Rahul damning the BJP's alleged efforts to hand "over power to one man" – a man who anyway rose from the ranks - and Rahul's position as topdog in his party purely by reason of his birth. Is handing over power to one man – assuming the charge is true – any better than handing it over to one family for 67 years?
Rahul's critique of AAP as a party that proposes over-simplified solutions is apt, but AAP is still wet behind the ears whereas the Congress has reached the age of wisdom – if not senility. Has the Congress offered anything other than simplified solutions to the idea of removing joblessness and poverty and hunger? It's all about increasing government spending – never mind that the bulk of the money goes to the corrupt. "The revolutionary and dynamic way that only the Congress party is capable of" is nowhere visible in the party's actions.
In another dig at Modi, he said: "We live in a world where packaging and selling politics seems to replace the essence of real issues and real people."
The counter-point is this: what else has the Congress been doing but packaging itself as the only solution to poverty all these years, from Indira Gandhi's "garibi hatao" years to Sonia Gandhi's "aam aadmi" tenure? More important, is packaging unimportant? If democracy is about selling good ideas to the people, this calls for packaging and marketing in order to nudge people towards change. Does he realise that 23 years after economic liberalisation – which is what enabled India to grow fast and create the surpluses needed for his welfare giveaways - there is still no constituency for reform? How is packaging and marketing unimportant in a democracy?
"Their marketing is very good. Chamak hai, gaana hai, naach hai, sub kuch hai (there is glitter, song, dance and everything). They are such people who will sell combs to the bald. More new people have come…ab naye log aaye hain, inhone haircut shuru kar di (new people have started haircuts on the bald). Don't get misled by the talk of these people."
This statement shows that the Congress Veep has learnt to include a sense of humour in his speeches, but twitter buzz got the last word on this: while BJP sells combs to the bald and AAP sells hair-cuts to those who don't need them, the Congress offers "Right to No-Hair Loss Act".
Implicit in this statement – and Rahul's own observations about selling combs to the bald – is the reality that India's politicians are selling solutions to problems that may not need solving. Rahul would do well to redirect his party's efforts to figuring out which problems to solve and which ones to leave alone. His only solution to all of our problems is spending taxpayers' money on subsidies.
Perhaps most important was his effort to pretend that more laws are the solution to problems. Strong anti-terror laws have not ended terror, strong SC/ST laws have not ended discrimination, strong domestic and anti-dowry laws have not eliminated these social scourges, and the Right to Education Act has only made the quality of education worse (read here). So he thinks every problem can be solved with a law.
Despite the fact that his government has been regarded as the most corrupt in history – we hardly need to repeat 2G, CWG and Coalgate to emphasise this – he made no references to them and indirectly dismissed them as unimportant. "Congress party passed the Lokpal Bill for the people of this country, others just made a hue and cry," he said.
Laws are only one part of the solution to issues, Mr Gandhi. We need sound implementation to make even good laws work. As for bad laws, they ought to be removed from the statute book.
And yes, a democratic Congress party is as vital to democracy secularism is to a BJP. But it would help if you walk the talk. For a start solve this paradox: can a family that reserves ultimate power in its hands, how will talent flower without the family itself abdicating its rights to that power?
We will believe you when you abdicate.
(Acknowledgement: Many of the quotes attributed to Rahul Gandhi, unless otherwise stated, have been taken from reportage in The Economic Times and The Indian Express)
No comments:
Post a Comment