The Congress seems to have abandoned its core philosophy; it’s emulating others

The Congress has to find its lost creed to revive itself. It may have given ground to the BJP nationally. It may be a junior partner in alliance Governments in some States. What cannot be denied, however, is its core vote bank across the country. It is the only national rival of the BJP. It is in a direct fight with the ruling party in half the Lok Sabha seats. What it has failed to do is win. The reason for its embarrassing existence is losing hold of the national narrative that characterised it for nearly 70 years. It was a combination of Nehruvian nationalism and secularism that remained its core despite the party banking on questionable and corrosive characteristics over the years. In a country that thrived on wearing religion and its public practice on its sleeve, the Congress saw no contradiction in practising secularism. Yes, there were exceptions, violent exceptions, but these were still exceptions. However, faced with a dynamic and rejuvenated plank of the BJP’s Hindutva nationalism, the Congress appeared to wilt. Self-doubt ate away at its core, weakening its secular resolve. It began to ape its political rival to survive. It swapped the secular banner with what it called ‘soft Hindutva’, realising quite late that it had lost its creed in the process. It began to wander in the wilderness of a potent ideology it fought to keep at bay in the past.

Rahul Gandhi on a temple spree wearing the Hindu sacred thread, his supporters calling him a ‘janeu-dhari Brahmin’, was the image Congress workers were armed with to carry on with their politics. Leaders like Kamal Nath issued more circulars about celebrating Hindu festivals than governance in Madhya Pradesh. Today, at a political crossroads, the Congress introspects where it went wrong. It went wrong because it abandoned its path. It can correct itself by getting back its narrative that advertises its core philosophy instead of emulating rival ideologies. It would do well to recall how Jawaharlal Nehru’s active intervention in Ayodhya stemmed religious passions from aggravating in 1949. His stand was reflected in the Congress victory in both parliamentary constituencies in Faizabad. That was political will in action. It was not based on surrendering Congress’ ideology to mime someone else’s. NT Rama Rao came up with Telugu ‘pride’ to counter the Congress narrative in Andhra Pradesh. Lalu Yadav’s answer to ‘Kamandal’ was Mandal. In contrast, Rajiv Gandhi allowed a religious ceremony at the disputed Ayodhya site. Simply opposing Hindutva or adopting soft Hindutva is as good as surrendering one’s identity. There is nothing called ‘soft’ Hindutva, incidentally. It is all about having a counter-narrative to carry a strong, parallel conversation within the country. The Congress needs to explain to itself why its voice is subdued when anti-secular issues like ‘hijab’ or ‘halal’ controversies erupt. Celebrating festivals is secular; promoting festivals of only one religion is not. That, in sum, is the creed.