Will the Congress have a second comingIJ It depends on how well it identifies the causes of its 2014 electoral loss and if it can throw up a leadership that inspires the country's confidence
Men are we, and must grieve when even the shade/ Of that which once was great is passed away.” That was William Wordsworth in On the Extinction of the Venetian Republic. Many, who once identified themselves with the Indian National Congress may be tempted to recall these words on seeing the current plight of India’s oldest political party. But then history has many examples of political parties and leaders, consigned to the mortuary of public life, springing suddenly to life and commanding the centre stage of contemporary events. Examples in India include that of Morarji Desai who was thought to have played out his political innings after his removal from the Union Cabinet by Indira Gandhi following the Congress split in 1969 and her sweeping win in the 1971 mid-term parliamentary elections. In 1977, he was Prime Minister after the Congress’s ignominious defeat in the lok Sabha elections of March that year. Another example is Winston Churchill. Consigned to the backwaters of British politics for a long time, he became Prime Minister when Britain was staggering on the ropes against Hitler’s onslaught. The rest, including the shattering of the Third Reich,is history.
Will the Congress have a second comingIJ The answer will depend on how deeply it introspects, identifies the causes of its debacle in the 2014 lok Sabha election, maps out an effective strategy for revival, and make that strategy work. It will also depend on whether it can throw up a leadership that inspires the country’s confidence and that is lacking now. Mr Rahul Gandhi, the heir apparent, has yet to fly, and the question is: Will he everIJ One does not know. Fairly or unfairly, the Rahul Baba image has stuck with a large cross-section. It is not impossible, but very difficult to transcend the image one has acquired.
One can argue that people who were considered weak, indecisive and inarticulate when they assumed office turned out to be commanding leaders. An example in India is lal Bahadur Shastri. When he first became Prime Minister in 1964, many felt that that he was put in office by the Syndicate, then running the Congress, because its members felt that he was weak and could be manipulated. He had earned a nationwide reputation for courage and farsightedness by the time of his untimely passing in January 1966. Indira Gandhi too had a reputation for being weak, indecisive and being hesitant in speech when she became Prime Minister in 1966. That reputation had gone for a sixer by the time of her tragic assassination on October 31, 1984.
It is, however, important to note a couple of things. While both lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi had steel in them, they could prove it because of the office they held and the challenges they faced. In Shastri’s case India’s remarkable performance in the 1965 war with Pakistan and the resolute leadership he displayed during it, showed him to be what he really was under a mild exterior. In Indira Gandhi’s case, it was her establishment of supremacy within the Congress through the 1969 split, VV Giri’s victory in the presidential election of that year and her sweeping triumph in the mid-term lok Sabha poll, that revealed her mettle, as did India’s comprehensive victory over Pakistan in the 1971 war and her role in the liberation of Bangladesh. These were singular feats which would have established her as perhaps the greatest Indian Prime Minister — perhaps eclipsing even her father, Jawaharlal Nehru — till date but for the shameful chapter of the emergency and her promotion of dynastic politics.
Unfortunately Mr Rahul Gandhi does not hold any office like the Prime Minister’s which can enable him to counter serious challenges and build up a reputation. His only route to building an image has to be political action — an electoral or organisational feat that will, in one stroke, remove the negative impression of his abilities that a large section harbours. Both of these will require a massive effort given the Congress’s current attenuated state.
This is a major disadvantage for him. Image is often of decisive importance in democratic politics, particularly at a time like this when solutions to the multitudinous problems facing a country depend on coping with complex technological, legal, economic and administrative issues. An understanding of each of these requires a high-level of specialisation, which most common citizens lack. Even experts in one field cannot fathom the intricacies of another. In such situation, people look for a leader who, they believe, can deliver, a leader with a reassuring image.
Mr Gandhi’s other disadvantage is a paucity of effective regional and second-rung Central leaders to support him. This in turn is a legacy from the time of Indira Gandhi who systematically sidelined such leaders to preclude challenges to her own authority and smoothen the process of dynastic succession.
Mr Gandhi and his party face a long, arduous trek. Holding up parliamentary proceedings will not help. They must begin with an exhaustive analysis of what went wrong and craft a strategy that can put them back on the path to power. History can help. What enabled the Indian National Congress to emerge as a party of national consensus during the freedom struggle and to mobilise vast masses from all parts of the countryIJ These are two basic questions that need to be asked for possible clues to a revival in the present context. This will require delving into the histories of the party as well as the freedom movement. For this, every thinking Congress leader — indeed, all interested in the history of India’s independence struggle — need to read carefully Amales Tripathi’s Indian National Congress and the Struggle for Freedom 1885-1947 (Oxford University Press).
The book, “largely but not entirely” (words of the translator Amitava Tripathi) the English translation of the Bengali work Swadhinata Sangrame Bharater Jatiya Congress (Ananda Publishers), covers the histories of both the party and the freedom struggle with great perspicacity and a wide historical vision that takes into account the global, British and Indian contexts of the events that unfolded. Amales Tripathi, whose passing some years ago has been a tremendous loss to Indian historiography, delineates trends, personalities, events, conflicts, calls to action and the dynamics of movements in detail and scholarly clarity. He does not lecture but leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions from the flow of the narrative. Will the Congress be able to do thatIJ