The Opposition is bereft of a political strategist. At the strategic level, the ethos of India has transformed from the Nehruvian to Hindu
The Congress leadership should realise that, being the senior political party, it has a duty towards the country. It is one of the important guardians of democracy, wherever it be. Acquiring power and governing properly comes next in its order of obligations. As it appears, the Congress is devoted to none of these. It merely displays a hatred of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which has no place in democracy. An opponent is an adversary, nothing more. Abuses like “Chowkidar chor hai” betray the speaker’s character and pollute the political atmosphere to no one’s gain.
The Congress has mostly functioned on the Führer Princip or the leadership principle. From 1921, Mohandas K Gandhi continued to dominate the party until 1946. Then it was the turn of Jawaharlal Nehru, especially after Sardar Patel’s passing away. He was followed by his illustrious daughter Indira Gandhi and then by her son Rajiv who knew or understood little of politics but managed somehow for five years. But he left a dent in the party. The poor men and women ceased to think it was their party. It was now the organisation of the rich who wore Gucci shoes, Ray-Ban glasses and so on.
However, no one looked upon the Congress as an anti-Hindu set-up. After PV Narasimha Rao completed his term as the PM, the party began to wobble. It seemed as if it was not being held together. The consensus emerged that only a Nehru-Gandhi can do so. Thus Sonia Gandhi was virtually fished out from the Mediterranean Sea for the party presidentship. To many an objective observer, it seemed that she would not be able to cope with the job. But she did for 10 years, not by hit-or-miss but by mediocre partiality. The secret was Ahmed Patel, a young MP from Bharuch in Gujarat who was loyal to Indira Gandhi right through the Emergency. He sat at the 12, Willingdon Crescent, bungalow outside Indira’s workroom on a stool the whole day, except for the lunch hour when he went home. Presuming me to be a fellow sympathiser, he explained the reason to me at the Circuit House, Ahmedabad. While he was not, by any means, a rabid Muslim, he felt that the future of Muslims in India lay in moderation and the Congress. No other party was dependable and capable of keeping his community across India, more or less, united. And the Nehru-Gandhis were the only family under whose umbrella Congressmen could remain together. Hindu domination would ruin this Dar-ul-Aman.
While Patel was Sonia’s guide, friend and philosopher, she could play the role of the supreme leader of the Congress and later that of an elder statesman in India. Trouble began for this cozy arrangement when Patel contracted COVID and subsequently became a pyara of Allah.
Ahmedbhai was an epitome of political selflessness and above the usual political desires. He was utterly loyal to the Nehru-Gandhis, and did not place any importance on becoming a Minister nor was he particularly fond of money. Above all, he never threw his weight around. Evidently, these are rare qualities in the world of politics. Then, he was a non-Hindu and, therefore, could easily fit into the mould of Sonia’s preferences. She would, therefore, blindly trust him. For a foreign lady to understand the currents and cross-currents of India’s diverse politics is almost impossible, especially if we remember that she has no political background. Oscar Fernandes could have been a useful replacement in Patel’s absence, but even he decided to travel to paradise. As we have seen, as an amateur of foreign birth, her demands for a political advisor are very tall. Herein lies the tactical problem of the present confusion and troubles the party finds itself in. The Opposition is bereft of a political strategist. All in all, for the present, it is a one-sided game. At the ground strategic level, the ethos of India has transformed from the Nehruvian to Hindu. What to do in this situation? The entire Opposition is roundly confused.
Socialism on the one hand and Hindu priorities on the other, do not gel. The former, in Marxist terms, can be described “from each according to his ability, to each according to his opportunity”, whereas the Hindu ethos revolves around karma. The sum of a person’s karma, including in past lives, would determine his opportunity and not the state of the Government. Non-alignment should not necessarily mean Nehruvian propensity to run and retreat, as he did particularly against China in the 1950s. In Kashmir, too, he was ready to spit but reluctant to fire. The results are for everyone to see.
The incumbent Government’s burden is to clean and clear the mess Nehruviansm has left behind. The latter’s incompetence in ruling has been evident in every member of its family. We have seen Nehru’s performance as well Rajiv’s. Indira’s performance is also well known with regard to the 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war let off in 1972. Doubts remain regarding the wisdom of relieving Pakistan of its unwanted backyard, which commanded the majority of its then undivided population. This is a story that is yet to be adequately told.
(This is part of an ongoing series on India making multi-dimensional advancement across States and nations).
(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
