Rahul’s AICC speech: Did it have any takeaways for party workers?

Rahul Gandhi outdid himself today, but he still failed to measure up. The party workers and functionaries, particularly the demoralized lot at the grassroots level, were desperate for a shot of adrenaline before the big election a few months away, what Rahul served them was a dampener in the form of a Congress vision statement. The morale booster they were looking for was largely missing in his speech at Talkatora stadium. If they were looking for quick fixes for the short term, he, like most of his speeches earlier, spoke in the long term.

Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi. PTI

It was not a bad performance at all and the content of his 45-minute speech was appreciable, yet it certainly wasn't what the doctor would have prescribed for party workers overwhelmed by defeatism. Why? Well, the talk of deepening of democracy, of the expanding scope of citizen's rights and of turning access to information into a weapon against corruption etc, is all good. Such subjects would be highly appreciated in seminar circles and elitist forums of similar nature, but how does an ordinary party worker explain these to the voters in rural and tribal areas?

The voters are not stupid, but one cannot expect people trapped in everyday miseries and looking for clear assurances from their leaders on these to be respectful to abstract concepts. The Congress think-tank has made no effort so far to simplify its achievements in the areas of RTI and legislations creating rights for people to the party worker down the rungs. Rahul's speeches reflect the lack of understanding in the party to reduce big concepts into messages which are uncomplicated, consumable and deliverable. If many of the participants left the AICC session with heads a bit heavy and confused, the party has no reason to blame them.

One of the biggest talking points for the Congress should be the NREGA. It has transformed the economy in the rural areas in interesting ways by bringing more money into poor households and proving to be a potent weapon against vagaries of nature and uncertainties on the job front. The party has been slammed in the elite circles for being populist and the scheme has been called a crude vote-buying proposition often enough, yet we have not seen it defending itself with much enthusiasm. None of the Congress leaders has explained it to the masses as a safety network mechanism, aimed at protecting the poor and the jobless.

It has also failed magnificently in countering the well-orchestrated attack on its economic policies. It does not matter much now whether these are good or bad, but the party could easily provide a moral spin to its policies by emphasising on fair distribution of wealth and talk of economic conscience. It would certainly appeal to a wide section of the masses which does not see any great virtue in the trickle-down economics. The Congress has made simple for its workers neither its welfare policies nor its other economic measures. How do they carry these to the voters? None of the speeches offered by senior leaders today addressed this problem. The disconnect between the top and the bottom rungs of the party was never this distinct.

Rahul's speeches – the language, ideas and tone aspects of these in particular - come straight out of the book of civil society activists. While there's nothing wrong in it, these serve little purpose if the party workers are left with no clarity in the end. Modi, by contrast, knows the pulse of his audience. He makes matters lucid, simple and digestible for them. That he can be crude and offensive is an added advantage. He, put in Rahul's words, may be selling combs to bald people, but to his credit he knows how to do it. If the Congress is not able to explain the virtues of a comb to its people, then it needs to introspect hard.

Rahul, who would be leading the Congress campaign in the general election, must rethink his speeches. He needs to bring these down to the level of the common man if he wants to make any impact. And yes, he must remember talking long term does not work with voters at all.