Rahul is a reluctant prince, like Rajesh Khanna, a weak hero: Meghnad Desai

The coming general elections will be highly interesting, Lord Meghnad Desai expects. In an interview to Firstpost on the sidelines of the Jaipur Literature Festival, the economist and Labour politician says he won't be surprised if AAP emerges as the second largest party, ahead of the Congress, which, he says, will not even be in a coalition government at the Centre.

What are you looking forward to in this upcoming election?

It is the most open election. The BJP emerges not only as a strong party, a well-prepared party from early on but it has played its wildest card - Narendra Modi. It didn't go conservative. That is what wrong footed the Congress for a long time. Secondly the Aam Aadmi Party. It has changed the conversation. It's attracted a lot more people into politics. I think the voting will be much higher this time. A lot of the middle class will vote. The outcome will be interesting. You will have three-cornered contests.

AFP

So is Arvind Kejriwal an even wilder card?

For BJP the wildest card was Narendra Modi. This is the joker in the pack. We don't know what will happen. And it's come so late on the scene there is no way to counter it. I have myself changed my opinion. Last year when they started I thought if they were very successful they would get 10 seats in Lok Sabha. Then I said 25. Now I don't know. It could end up being the second-largest party ahead of Congress. That is an interesting thing about these elections.

Also I think this is a re-calibration of the idea of India. The hegemonic power of Congress, the way Congress pictured India, almost as a Nehruvian possession. People are saying come on. All this means it means is you have divided India into many many cells. Why don't we have India as Indian and first identity is as an Indian citizen. I've been saying it myself. If M F Husain is attacked, it's not because he's Muslim you should protect him. You should protect him as an Indian citizen. If you promise Taslima Nasreen protection, protect her regardless if the imams go against. You have to say first Indian citizen, second - minority, OBC etc.

Was the Shah Bano case pivotal in this issue of which identity comes first?

I think the Shah Bano case was a missed opportunity for modernity on the part of the Congress. Shah Bano could have triggered a whole different treatment of Muslims. Everyone talked about modernization of Hindu society. Noone was touching Muslim society. From the Muslim community comes a genuine case. The government could have easily said the court decision stands. They had to do nothing to encourage modernity. They failed. Now the minority is realizing that they cannot put their eggs in one basket. The basket has holes in it.

But Section 377 was the reverse. The court seems to be going against modernity. The government is the one pushing for it.

Well, you still have not seen the case. These guys are not to be trusted. They are going to wait till the final moment. I would say if you are going to establish the rights for gay people, Parliament has to pass an act basically deleting 377 from IPC. If you do it the (court) way another decision can go against it. You see, judiciary is not the final word. Parliament is the final word. But judiciary is convenient but it is arbitrary. You have to rely on people's power. The Labour Party had to convince the Conservative Party because deep in the British psyche is a resistance to homosexuality. It had to be patiently argued. They had to be convinced. If they do it quickly, I am happy, eventually some parliament will have to reform the entire IPC which is full of peculiar things. While I'll be happy with quick action by the government, I think whoever comes to power next should take up this question and delete 377 from IPC.

You have said at a session that Modi was a Dabanng type hero. What do you mean?
What I was saying that in India there is a deep thirst for a strong leader which Indira Gandhi was. After ten years of Manmohan Singh people are impatient. Manmohan Singh is a 1950s hero – strong, silent type. Now they want a Dabanng hero. They want someone who can kick butt. He is not just an angry young man. He is a police officer. Modi is that image. People who don't like Modi say he's authoritarian. But that's why people want to vote for him. People want someone decisive. Someone who is seen to be acting.

In response to an audience question about where the Angry Young Man has gone, you quipped he had become Arvind Kejriwal. So what role do you see Rahul Gandhi playing?
I don't know. He is the reluctant prince.

A friend said he's Vijay in Shakti – mere paas ma hain.
Or mere paas daadi bhi hain. I don't know he's like Rajesh Khanna – a weak hero. I know. I know – he's Bharat Bhushan. Nice, good-looking but namby pamby.

Why do we still thirst so much for an authoritarian leader?
Manmohan Singh has been silenced so much. His style was quiet anyway. Lal Bahadur Shastri was a quiet prime minister but he was a strong prime minister. He was his own boss. But people have lost patience because they blame the crisis on the weakness of the prime minister even though one person does not make all the difference. When 26/11 happened a strong prime minister would have been there or at least on television. It took 36 hours for the prime minister to get on television. When Oklahoma bombing happened Clinton was there in no time at all. When a tragedy takes place the nation looks up to its leaders. It's an irrational urge but it's a genuine urge. And I think that's where Manmohan made a major mistake. I would have been okay if even Sonia Gandhi had gone.

If Manmohan Singh's USP was as the decent man, does his fall for grace mean decency will also get regarded as weak?
Decency is not enough. Decency and incorruptibility should be taken as given. You should not have to advertise you are not corrupted. I think it was the deterioration in Indian politics that decency was thought to be a great card. A chief executive has to be seen implementing. You have to get on that horse and ride and it is not enough to be quiet.

What do you see as the Congress problem where Rahul Gandhi wants to rebuild the party for the long term but how much will be left of the party in the long term the way it is headed?
I think Congress Party after Indira Gandhi split it was increasingly built on the promise of power. There was no ideology left. It was a machine that was designed to win elections. The moment it stopped winning elections it would fall apart. And it's losing at the state level and at the central level. So my view is the Congress Party will not be even in a coalition government after this. The Aam Aadmi Party will become Congress Mark 2 – non-dynastic, modern, slightly left of centre, bit of Gandhian heritage in the topi, and a younger party. Congress will probably survive. It's not gone but it has exited itself. The country was lucky in Rahul Gandhi. The Congress Party was unlucky in Rahul Gandhi.