Many
Indian politicians, especially in the Hindu parties, have been extremely
hostile to Sonia Gandhi. Ever since independence, the official establishment
has tried hard to end discrimination against scheduled castes. I could never
see how those who were blind to caste could hold someone’s race or nationality
at birth against her. A more rational argument against her leading the Congress
was the series of electoral defeats it suffered under her, as I argued in this
column in the Telegraph of 30 December 2003. That trend was reversed, and the
Congress formed governments at the centre from 2005 till 2014.
CAN THE CONGRESS RECOVER?
A party that cannot win might as well
wind up
|
Nationality is an artificial and
irrational construct. The world is divided into nations, and nations have
governments. They devise rules on nationality that they find politically
convenient. But wherever there is a government, there must be the governed; and
a democratic government ought to be responsible to all whom it governs. That
means residents of the geographical area administered by the government; it
does not matter where they were born, or what is the colour of their skin, or
how long they have been where they are. So in my view, Bangladeshis, Nepalis,
Argentinians, Bulgarians — whoever is in India should have voting rights and
a right to the services of the government.
On rulers, I have even more extreme
views. I believe that anyone in the world who wants to should be allowed to
come and fight elections in this country. The quality of our ruling class is
extremely poor; the quality of the political class from whom it is recruited
is even poorer. It can only be improved if some foreigner — someone not
resident in India — takes the trouble to come to this country and enter
politics. The argument that a country of one billion should be able to find
good enough rulers within itself does not convince me at all. Even if we
could find good rulers in this country — which we cannot — we should import
more competent ones if they are prepared to come.
That is why I have always viewed with
distaste the campaign politicians, mostly of the Hindu extremist variety,
have carried on against Sonia Gandhi. Here is a woman who has lived almost
all her adult life in this country, who has watched politics at close
quarters and known the most accomplished politicians of the country, and who
has bothered to learn that funny language called Hindi. That is ample
qualification for being a politician — even prime minister.
Whether she should become prime minister
has nothing to do with the fact that her parents are Italian, that she was
born in Italy, that she belongs to the white race; these considerations are
utterly irrelevant. The question to ask is, can she lead the Congress to
power? And having done so, what sort of PM should she make?
It is not a great qualification, but she
is a far better chairman than her husband. She knows how to conduct meetings,
how to consult people, how to lead them to decisions. She can delegate. Her
star is waning today because of the defeats in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh. But the chief ministers of the three states had run their
states with complete autonomy; the defeats are theirs. Sonia is a complete
contrast to Rajiv Gandhi, who was extremely impetuous, often imperious,
unnecessarily interfering, and sometimes extremely silly.
Her misfortune is that she has presided
over a party in decline. The Bharatiya Janata Party has stolen so many of her
party men. It has worked out the secret of gaining power: forget politicians’
antecedents, and reward them in proportion to their role in keeping the party
in power. With this simple formula, it has lured away Congressmen by the
hordes. In vast parts of the country, the Congress has been left with tired
old men. This is not the picture everywhere; but by and large, the BJP has
far more numerous and younger second and third ranks.
Those that are left are not always
election winners; so they court the leader. There has been for long something
feudal about the Congress — a big leader rewarding courtiers or throwing them
on the rubbish bin. The tradition really emerged in the times of Indira
Gandhi. She was extremely paranoid; loyalty was the only qualification she
required. But she was also popular. She could win elections. So even if she
had monkeys in her working committee, it did not matter.
With Sonia it does. For she is not in
Indira’s class. I admire the pains she has taken to learn Hindi; I admire her
speeches. But that is admiration for her speechwriters. She does not set
people on fire. Elections are a battle, you need to inspire your troops for
it. She just does not. And I do not think it is just the fault of the
speechwriters. However much I may defend her right to be in Indian politics,
including the right to be PM, I just do not think she is a winning leader.
In any normal political party, a leader
who cannot win would be voted out. Consigned to the opposition, the British
conservatives have changed leaders three times in the last seven years; the
Canadian conservatives have done so twice in the past ten years. The German
conservatives have developed a consortium to lead them; Angela Merkel, the
formal leader, is not the only one being projected. Winning is all-important
in politics; a party that cannot win might as well wind up. But much before
that it will behead its leader.
The Congress has done it too. After his
defeat, it got rid of Narasimha Rao, and anointed that curmudgeonly Sitaram
Kesri. He was an even bigger failure, so it brought in Sonia Gandhi. Everyone
is focused on Sonia’s love for power; but she was placed where she is by the
choice of the party. And she has stayed there because, leaving out the
general elections, the party had done quite well.
Except in the last round of elections;
and that has already started her thinking. She has gone back on the Simla
message, that coalitions with other parties were possible only if they
accepted her as PM. But this retreat is of doubtful value. For it throws the
prime ministership open to dozens of leaders, her party’s as well as alliance
partners’; now Laloo and Mulayam will insist on prime ministership. And in
the squabbling that will now begin, the Congress may lose the next general
election as well. And make no mistake, if it does lose, Sonia’s crown will be
in danger.
What the Congress needs is not such
gestures, but a combat force. Not a combat force of septuagenarians, but of
leaders in their thirties and forties. Not leaders living in Lutyens
bungalows in Delhi, but leaders with a local presence. They may be chief ministers,
ex-chief ministers, or others. But the fate of the Congress in the coming
elections will depend on provincial leadership.
What Sonia should do is forget the
working committee, and call together a combat committee of provincial leaders
— not just from the Congress but also from potential allies. She should chair
the committee — but it should not be a vapid, feudal committee of the
Congress sort. If she finds that her presence stultifies it, she should let
someone else — say, P. Chidambaram, or Digvijay Singh — run it.
The committee should certainly ask on
what issues the Congress should run elections. But above all, it should look
at the political arithmetic, and devise a strategy for limiting the BJP’s
seat count. The lower it is, the more difficult the BJP will find to cobble
up a coalition. This is no longer the time to hold big meetings at Shivaji
Park; it is the time to craft winning strategies on the ground. It worked in
Kashmir; it can work in India. But only if the Congress manages to shake off
its feudal lassitude.
|
