It is now seven years since Mr Rahul Gandhi made a formal entry into national politics after successfully contesting the Lok Sabha election from Amethi constituency in Uttar Pradesh in 2004. Three years later, he was formally inducted into the Congress ‘high command’ when he was appointed general secretary of the party. Over these years Mr Gandhi has been trying to find his place in politics, but the political dividends accruing to the party do not appear to be commensurate with his labour. Unlike his father Rajiv Gandhi, who caught the imagination of the nation with his ‘Mr Clean’ image when he entered politics, the response to Mr Rahul Gandhi’s political forays in Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere has been nothing more than lukewarm.
There could be many reasons for the absence of the ‘Rajiv Gandhi magic’ and the indifferent public response. One can explain this away by saying that the present political environment is extremely hostile to the Congress and this could be reducing his chances of success. But, apart from the external environment, two aspects of his personality which could be contributing to his limited success are lack of conviction and lack of courage.
Let us take a look at Mr Gandhi’s conduct and utterances over the last seven years and see whether he scores on any of these points — commitment, sincerity and courage — qualities that endear politicians to people.
Mr Gandhi declared some years ago that if a member of his family had been the Prime Minister in December 1992, the disputed Babri Masjid structure would not have been razed to the ground. He was being downright dishonest because it was his father Rajiv Gandhi who had ensured the opening of the locks on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi structure when he was Prime Minister. Again, it was his father who had sent Home Minister Buta Singh to Ayodhya to participate in the shilanyas ceremony for the Ram Mandir just weeks before the Lok Sabha election in November 1989.
In other words, Rajiv Gandhi enabled Hindus to offer prayers at the site and thereafter put his Government’s stamp of approval on the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s idea of building a ‘Bhavya Mandir’ for Ram. After all this, Rahul Gandhi wants us to believe that if Rajiv Gandhi had been Prime Minister in December 1992, the Babri Masjid structure would not have fallen. This is an attempt by the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty to fool the Muslims, to portray PV Narasimha Rao, the Prime Minister in 1992, as a villain, and to pretend as if members of his family had no role whatsoever in the events leading to December 6, 1992. This is a crude, dishonest attempt to falsify history.
More recently, when the scams relating to the Commonwealth Games, Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society and 2G surfaced, people across the country were horrified at the extent to which public servants could go to feather their own nests and rob the nation of its wealth. The youth were particularly exercised over these scandals and became vocal participants in the anti-corruption movement spear-headed by Anna Hazare. While all this was on, the nation’s ‘youth icon’ and the Congress’s heir apparent virtually went off the political radar.
Mr Gandhi was reluctant to speak up against corruption because if he did, he would be seen as speaking against his own Government. Had he spoken up, he would have fallen foul of the Congress’s allies like the DMK. Also, he would have had to face uncomfortable questions vis-à-vis Bofors and other scandals. Yet, this was a risk worth taking because it would have put him in the vanguard of the anti-corruption movement. But this was not to be. Instead, it is Anna Hazare who holds the reins of the anti-corruption movement and has caught the imagination of the youth. Mr Gandhi has been reduced to reading out written speeches hailing Mr Hazare and demanding the establishment of a strong Lok Pal.
Apart from lacking in sincerity and courage, he is given to making bizarre statements when he is caught off guard or when he strays from the written text. Some years ago, when a correspondent of a weekly magazine caught up with him in Amethi, he claimed that he could have become Prime Minister when he attained the age of 25 but he had chosen not to because he “did not want to shout at his seniors”. In recent times, he has strayed from the script and landed in trouble, like when he asked his audience at Phulpur how long would they go to Maharastra “to beg”. The people of Uttar Pradesh felt offended by this remark because a majority of those who migrate from the State are skilled workers who pick up well-paying jobs in other parts of the country.
Mr Gandhi is also given to making strange claims about his interventions. For example, after reading out the text of a prepared speech in the Lok Sabha on the Lok Pal issue, he told mediapersons outside Parliament that his statement was “a game-changer”. Is it not strange for someone to make such a claim about his own speech? Is he naïve or disingenuous? The jury is still out.
Another aspect of his persona which has now come to notice is his disrespect for Parliament. Although he is one of the younger MPs, he seems to take Parliament for granted, something which even parliamentarians of the stature of Indrajit Gupta or Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee never did. Mr Gandhi’s disrespect for this institution came through when he set off on a five-day yatra of Uttar Pradesh beginning November 22, the opening day of the Winter Session of Parliament.
Finally, a word about sycophancy. It must be admitted that sycophancy had come down substantially after Ms Sonia Gandhi took over the reins of the Congress. Compared to the heyday of Mrs Indira Gandhi when Congress president Dev Kant Barooah declared “Indira is India and India is Indira”, the times have changed. Yet, there is no shortage of people who try this old trick to catch the attention of the Nehru-Gandhis. At the recent Youth Congress convention, a member of the Congress Working Committee hailed Mr Gandhi for leading the biggest youth movement, the kind which had not been seen even in China or Russia. As Mr Gandhi prepares for a bigger role in the party, are we in for a return of sycophancy as in the 1970s?
