In the slanging match between the rival parties, what has receded way beyond levels of public perception is the key question: how suitable, or otherwise, is Rahul as a potential leader? This question does not quite apply to Modi, who has held high public office for over a decade and nearly all his failures and successes are in the public domain. But Rahul as a leader is still an unknown entity, a mystic. Has he got it in him to become a leader if India votes a UPA-3 to power in 2014? His father, the late Rajiv Gandhi, sadly lacked the quality; he squandered the gilt-edged opportunity that a family tragedy had brought before him—that of leading a party with a 80 per cent strength in the Lower House. His grandmother Indira Gandhi’s failure as a leader is still more tragic.
Not much is known about Rahul’s intellectual bent except that he is an avid reader; I had a longish meeting with him in 2003 but it was impossible to figure out how did he view India’s contemporary situation, or its line of march. A few days back, probably in response to Modi’s fierce attack on the “family” and the alleged ineffectuality of Manmohan Singh as prime minister, Rahul’s handlers set him up in the Central Hall of Parliament to meet a select group of MPs and journalists. I happened to be present there. Incidentally, this was Rahul Gandhi’s third interaction in the Central Hall- first for 30 minutes, second for about 70 minutes and the last being running into 100 minutes. The last was rather free-wheeling where he gave three clues to his persona, which are crucial, in my judgment, to get an idea of his leadership potential.
First, he agreed with the crowd that dynasty was a bad thing and that Congress was beset with the problem of having too many dynastic leaders. He went to the extent of dropping a handy phrase, “high-command culture”, and was in agreement with the view that its initiator was none but his grandmother. At the same time, he defended Indira stoutly, saying that his grandmother had been “attacked” by her opponents, and that if he had faced a similar onslaught he’d perhaps have reacted in the same way.
The second clue to Rahul’s character is to be found in his rather huffy response to the question if he’d like to be Prime Minister. “Asking me whether I want to be Prime Minister is a wrong question”, he said. He never said he doesn’t want to be Prime Minister. He merely meant that its not his priority and his task is to strengthen the party. Finally, he said, jocularly perhaps, that he might not marry at all as his not marrying could put to an end the vexed dynasty issue, though he didn’t say it in so many words.
It appears from his responses that Rahul is an uncharacteristic “Gandhi”, being disturbed by the anachronistic phenomenon of dynasty and its adverse impact on the future of the Congress party. At 42, he stands at the cusp between the old world and the new. The “old” world, from his perspective, was based on the importance of nexus and elite background, but it is now giving way to cut-throat competition for positions of power. The “high command culture” is his way of ridiculing his own legacy. Rahul mocks at it but does not disrespect his lineage. That explains the imaginary “onslaught” on his grandmother, and the bravado underlying his remark that he’d have done the same thing if he’d gotten into a similar situation. It is Rahul’s way of saying, let bygone remain bygone.
Still he believes that Congress’ dependence on hereditary leadership is a time warp, and that explains his wry remark about his own marriage plans. But his key observation was that whether he wished to be the PM was a “wrong” question to ask. He is perfectly aware of the headwinds his party is faced with, and that too many people may not wager on Congress getting the winning numbers. He is more honest than his sycophants to admit the reality of the problem his party is facing.
Rahul is a self-proclaimed disciple of Mahatma Gandhi. According to Gandhi, “leadership…means getting along with people”. This approach does not always produce a good outcome. People cannot always decide what is good for them. The 1947 partition of India was one such bad decision of the majority, to which Gandhi acquiesced. It is said that the current reformist zeal of the government has Rahul’s tacit nudge. If that is true, he cannot be a getting-along-with-people politician, like his grandmother and mother, both committed to vote-bank politics.
Rahul has ‘inherited’ a party that looks upon politics as a business and has little link with the masses. Rather than Mahatma Gandhi, his role model should have been someone like carmaker Henry Ford who said that a leader ought not find fault, but “find a remedy” and give “hope”.
 (The author is the National editor of Lokmat group) |
