www.dailypioneer.com/

October 4th , 2007
Balbir K Punj

More by coincidence than design, the Congress, by making Mr Rahul Gandhi the general secretary of the party, has tried to capitalise on the increasingly recognised global success of India's youth power. But no one with a sense of history has missed the design in the pattern that the Nehru-Gandhi family follows. Rajiv Gandhi also was similarly crowned the 'prince in waiting' in 1981 and, within hours of Mrs Indira Gandhi's assassination, chosen by the party to lead the Government. Not one senior leader of the party dissented.

The pattern had already been set. The Congress had passed on from being Mahatma Gandhi's party to being the jagir of the Nehrus. And the freedom fighters or their heirs had reduced themselves to being sycophant courtiers.

Of course, Congressmen could point fingers at other parties - almost all of them except the cadre-based BJP and the Left parties - that have followed the same script: Mr Uddhav Thackeray instead of Mr Raj Thackeray in the Shiv Sena; Mr M Karunanidhi's son, Mr MK Stalin and not his nephew's son, Mr Dayanidhi Maran, in the DMK; one sees dynasties also in Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav's RJD and Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav's SP. In every case, blood is thicker than the glue of ideology that binds cadre and the party. This is a national shortcoming, a feudal heritage which some parties are unable to shake off.

Detractors of Right-wing politics have frowned at the phenomenon of 'son rise' in the BJP too. However, there is a basic difference in the way it has happened in this party. None of the sons have been or are being groomed for succession; if they are MPs, it is their right and the desire of the party leadership to induct fresh blood into the party to reinvigorate it. No one in the BJP has ever said that the sons would be the natural successors to the political position their parents hold today. And the progenies of the topmost leaders like Mr LK Advani and Mr Murli Manohar Joshi are not at all in politics. Even in the past, neither in the RSS nor in the BJP or Jana Sangh did 'son worship' ever creep in.

Inner-party criticism in the Congress stops at the doors of 10 Janpath. Whatever wrong decisions are taken, the "advisers" are made scapegoats. This mindset aids the supreme leader of the party to divert criticism, rotating the courtiers to fit the occasion. The monumental follies of Rajiv Gandhi, for instance, in reversing the Supreme Court's Shah Bano verdict, in sending the Army to Sri Lanka to fight the Tamil Tigers, in the attempt to cover up the Bofors scandal, etc, are never pointed out in that party.

The Congressmen, on the other hand, are not admonished for tarring the reputation of former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao. He is blamed for the 1996 ouster of the party from power. This criticism overlooks the fact that in 1991 Rao headed a minority Government and yet managed to last five years in power through adroit political manoeuvre.

What, in contrast, is the record of Rajiv Gandhi? From a position of having two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha, the Treasury benches had the dubious record of running Parliament without the presence of any Opposition party, all of whom boycotted the House's proceedings a few months before the 1989 election. Thereon, the party had to bear the ignominy of the Bofors scandal for years to follow. Yet, the Congress is naming every corner of the country after Rajiv Gandhi. So much so, it did not allow the people of Hyderabad to name the new airport in the city after NT Rama Rao whose name was replaced with Rajiv Gandhi's at the last moment.

The Congress is not only choosing to live under the shadow of the Nehru-Gandhis, but is also going all out to obliterate any other name from the annals of history. Giants of the freedom struggle like Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, BC Roy, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, etc, are confined to the corners. But every Government scheme, every airport, every national building, etc is named after the Nehru-Gandhis.

How worshipping this one family stunts national endeavour and consciousness is evident in every foundation stone laid and event celebrated in the name of national heroes. Take for instance the recent observation of the anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi by the UN this October 2. The Congress declares from rooftops that the Mahatma is the father of the nation. But the leadership that goes to UN to represent India on the occasion is simply a two-person delegation of mother and son.

The Prime Minister is supposed to be the leader of the country. His job on this historic occasion is to flag off a party rally, not be before the international gathering in New York. When national honour was being challenged in Geneva in 1993, Rao at least had the wisdom to send Opposition leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee to lead the Indian delegation to the Human Rights Commission where Mr Vajpayee fended off attacks from Pakistan and turned the tide.

The world recognised Gandhi as a great leader from India. But the Government has dishonoured him by making him appear a Congress mascot in order to burnish the image of its 'crown prince'. Congressmen have no voice in the party to protest the misuse of the national occasion as a family function. How can they protest, having acquiesced all along in turning over the Congress legacy to a fiefdom?

Communist countries like North Korea and Cuba are known to promote one family leaderships with vengeance; many authoritarian countries like Syria also do so. In Singapore, on the other hand, the grand old man Lee Kuan Yew, who built the modern city-state as an island of prosperity and egalitarianism, did not allow his son to succeed him smoothly. Lee's son first had to slog in the Army as an officer, was posted in the war zone of Vietnam, came back and joined politics, became Minister for 10 years before becoming Prime Minister through a democratic process.

The ruling party's culture of worshipping every member of one family as the answer to all the problems of the party and the nation, of placing a glass ceiling over all other leaders in that party, and the climate of sycophancy that such cultures lead to, are dangerous. Family fiefdoms are inconsistent with a healthy democracy.

Political analyst Mahesh Rangarajan told IANS that the Congress decision last month to name Rahul Gandhi, 37, as a general secretary was aimed at grooming him ahead of the next general elections due in 2009 but which may take place earlier."The party's thinking is clear," he said. "They are preparing and grooming him for the leadership. That is why they have put him in charge of Youth Congress and NSUI (National Students Union of India). But this will be connected to the number of people from these groups they put up in elections.

"But we need to remember that the coming elections will be fought on the record of the Manmohan Singh government. Does he (Rahul) have the stomach for prolonged electoral politics? So far he has only had brief forays. Will he pass the acid test?" "When Sanjay Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi got into party affairs, the Congress had majorities on its own. So it will be much tougher for Rahul Gandhi. The Congress is a pale shadow of its previous self.

"The Congress has usually come up with new ideas. What does Rahul have? If there is something, it is a closely guarded secret. What has emerged so far from Rahul is too little."