NEW DELHI: Rahul Gandhi, the scion of a dynasty that has led India for most of its history, suggested in an interview he was ready to be prime minister if his party won forthcoming elections, his first indication that he wants the job.
Gandhi's Congress party heads the coalition that has governed India for a decade. Buffeted by corruption scandals, low economic growth and high inflation, the party is facing strong opposition challenges in the election due by May.
"I am a soldier of Congress. Whatever order is given to me I will follow it. Whatever Congress says, I will follow it," Gandhi, 43, said in a rare interview with the Hindi-language Dainik Bhaskar, which describes itself as India's most widely read daily.
Gandhi, whose father, grandmother and great-grandfather were all prime ministers in post-independence India, made the remarks ahead of a party meeting on Friday focusing on the election.
Current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh this month ruled out serving another term if his party won the election and threw his support to Gandhi, praising his "outstanding credentials".
Many party workers, including senior ministers, are pushing for Gandhi's name to be announced as prime ministerial candidate. A section of the party, however, thinks that would expose him to a confrontational campaign against opposition leader Narendra Modi, whose style is seen as more dynamic.
Gandhi said Congress does not traditionally announce prime ministerial candidates during a campaign, but said he would respect the party's decision.
If nominated, Gandhi would take on Modi, the candidate of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who is campaigning on a platform to end the red tape and graft that have bedevilled the Congress-led coalition.
Compared with the relatively untested Gandhi, Modi has years of experience as the chief minister of western Gujarat state, where he has built a reputation as an efficient, business-savvy administrator, though critics deride him as authoritarian.
Gandhi said a "one-man" government was not in the national interest. "The government should not function according to the whims and fancy of a single person," he told the newspaper.
Opinion polls put Modi in the lead, even as he has been unable to shake off allegations over anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002.
At least 1,000 people were killed, most of them Muslims. Modi denies wrongdoing and a Supreme Court investigation found no evidence to prosecute him.
The Congress meeting is also expected to inject life into its slow-moving campaign. At the same meeting last year, Rahul was made party vice-president. His mother, Sonia Gandhi is party president.
Congress leaders are also worried about the rise of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), formed by an anti-corruption crusader less than a year ago. The AAP defeated Congress in New Delhi in a state election last month and plans to field candidates across India, increasing the chances of a weak coalition emerging from the vote.
Gandhi has in recent months railed against corruption to win back voters who backed the AAP and appeal to young audiences. He sought to distance himself from the AAP in the interview.
"Congress is a strong and progressive organization which has changed the nature and role of politics in the country and we aim to continue the trend," he said.
"The Aam Aadmi Party has also worked toward this direction, but we are two different entities with different ideology and different style of working."
Rahul Gandhi hints at PM role if party wins election
Related
If one reason has to be given for the drubbing suffered by the Congress in Delhi, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, it is the flawed outlook of the party’s first family.
If the Congress has somehow managed to survive the ill wind blowing against it in Chhattisgarh, the explanation seemingly lies in the fact that the state is in a category of its own because of the Maoist insurgency, which wiped off the party’s top leadership in a murderous onslaught. This insensate act of carnage may have generated a sympathy wave for the Congress. Otherwise, the party may have met the same fate as elsewhere in north and central India.
It also has to be said at this point that the gains of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the greenhorn Aam Admi Party (AAP) are mainly by default. They only had to be in the field to rake in the votes from an electorate deeply disillusioned with the Congress. If the latter had not shot itself in the foot, these parties are unlikely to have made much headway.
However, the factors which undermined the Congress were the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty’s various missteps, starting with its role in 2010 in persuading the Manmohan Singh government to persist with the then telecom minister Andimuthu Raja till his tainted reputation led to the Supreme Court’s strictures and his incarceration.
However, if Congress president Sonia Gandhi had insisted on Raja’s removal from the ministry the moment when the charges against him surfaced, the Congress might have escaped the series of scams, which subsequently afflicted it. It was sleaze at first and then stagflation, which fueled the popular anger against it and led to the party facing its current massive setbacks.
If the charges of corruption were in keeping with the Congress’ long-prevalent cynical “traditions,” the high inflation and low investments were the result of Sonia Gandhi’s failure to understand how India has changed since the opening up of the economy since 1991.
In her view, the country was still in the period when she first came to India as a young bride to Indira Gandhi’s household. Unfortunately, the lessons, which she learnt from her formidable mother-in-law were all the wrong ones.
These included keeping the party in power at all costs — even by imposing an emergency rule, as in 1975 — and pursuing Left-of-center policies (although in Indira’s time, these were called Left of self-interest). It was the second objective, which led to the virtual stalling of the economic reforms in the last few years, leading to the rising rupee and falling investments by both domestic and foreign industrialists.
The driving force behind the scuttling of the reforms was what has been called Sonia Gandhi’s kitchen cabinet — the extra-constitutional National Advisory Council (NAC). The leftist orientation of the members of this panel of busybodies can be gauged from the observations of two of its former members.
First, Harsh Mander claimed that the Congress’ 2009 victory was due to the rural employment scheme and not the Indo-US nuclear deal. And, then, Aruna Roy bemoaned the fact that the government was placing too much emphasis on reforms. Her comment was somewhat like what the Communist Party of India’s A. B. Bardhan said after the Congress returned to power in 2004 — the Sensex be damned.
This strident leftism is based on the belief that the poverty levels in India are still what they were in the 1960s. Rahul Gandhi’s repeated references in his campaign speeches to his party’s concern for the poor reflected this outlook. What he and his mother do not seem to have realized is that a 300 million-strong voluble and aspirational middle class has made its appearance since 1991, which is impatient with the Congress’ feudal attitude of a munificent landowning family providing doles and subsidies to the underprivileged.
What is more, even the underprivileged have understood that their conditions can be bettered by a buoyant economy rather than by a continuing dependence on official handouts via a quota system, which fuels caste-based sectarianism. Sonia Gandhi’s insistence on including the caste data in census operations after a gap of 80 years — the practice was stopped in 1931 — showed how her mind was working.
Regressive steps of this nature suggest that if the Congress is to regain the trust of the voters, it has to first shed its pathetic dependence on the dynasty. It would have been all right if the family had been forward-looking as it once was when Jawaharlal Nehru outlined his vision by declaring dams as the temples of modern India. But not when opposition parties are decried, as Rahul Gandhi did, for regarding roads, bridges and airports as the “only markers of progress.”
If the Congress fails to extricate itself from the stranglehold of the dynasty, or if the dynasty fails to reboot itself, the party can only go downhill. That will be a tragedy because the BJP’s communalism remains the albatross round its neck while the Aam Admi Party is still a babe in the woods for any opinion to be formed about its future.
- Courtesy: Caravandaily.com
AS Karnataka —a southern Indian state — goes to polls to elect a new assembly on May 5, campaigning in the state has reached its peak. Political parties in Karnataka are leaving no stone unturned to woo voters. The key parties in the fray are the Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S).
Five years after the BJP came to power on its own strength or the first time in a southern state, the Congress is confident it can win back Karnataka. The Congress victory in the state is expected to prove crucial for the party in the coming parliamentary polls. It will also spell a major boost for the Congress party in four assembly polls, scheduled for later this year. The Congress and the BJP will be locked in a direct contest in assembly polls in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan.
Pitching for her party in Karnataka assembly elections, Congress president Sonia Gandhi has displayed a greater aggressive tone in her campaign, targeting the BJP rule in Karnataka than ever before. While there is nothing surprising about the lady heading an election campaign or contents of her speeches, the difference in her tone and expressions is too conspicuous to be missed. This time around, her speeches are not marked by any passivity or gentleness as she passionately attacked the BJP for having betrayed the people’s mandate. During her first campaign rally in Karnataka, she strongly asked the people to vote for a change. Describing the period of the BJP’s government as “some of the darkest days,” she assertively said, “People want change. The need for change is now, and now.”
Within a week, the people’s verdict will reveal whether they have gone for a change of government or not. The lady has seldom been seen on camera and on stage, while addressing rallies with broad smiles and also varying expressions on her face. She is known to have projected a solemn look, with at times half-a-smile bordering her lips. The expression has usually remained the same, whatever be the content of her address. This scenario appears to have changed totally for Karnataka assembly polls. Her last Friday’s address in Karnataka is marked by a complete change in the style of her campaign speech.
The manner in which Sonia delivered her speech indicates that she is going overboard to personally reach out to the audience and convince them facially, verbally as well as politically. Blaming the BJP government for having served only its “narrow and selfish political ends,” Sonia pointed out that industries were no longer competing to invest in Karnataka. They were leaving Karnataka because of corruption, government interference and infrastructure issues, she said. Committing her party to bring political stability to Karnataka, Sonia also promised to restore the state’s image as a “bright state” of India. The “Congress will ensure that this Karnataka thrives and prospers,” she said.
Sonia’s Karnataka-campaign may be viewed as strategically motivated for several reasons. The tremendous change in her posture clearly reflects that lady is now more conscious than before of her images flashing across the country and the world on television channels, newspapers and the Internet. Her objective is to leave a positive impact and also appear optimistic about prospects of the Congress in Karnataka assembly polls. Perhaps, she is sure that the present-day communication technology can have a strong impact on voters’ decision.
If parliamentary polls were not less than a year away, Karnataka polls may not have mattered much. But with her nature of campaign in the state, Sonia has also set the stage for high-voltage campaigns in the parliamentary polls.
A point made by Sonia, during her speech in Chikamagalur, also indicates that special attention has been paid to strike a personal chemistry between herself and the audience. She reminded the voters of having voted for her mother-in-law in a by-election from Chikamagalur in 1978, which helped Indira Gandhi revive her political fortunes and assume office again as prime minister.
She said: “We can never forget and will never forget that Chikmagalur adopted my mother-in-law Indira Gandhi as your own sister. Thirty-five years ago, the people of Chikmagalur lent Indiraji a helping hand when she needed it most.”
If the BJP fails to return to power in Karnataka, some credit must go to the Congress leader, Sonia Gandhi.
Talking to large rallies of people with scores of everyday problems, pains and sorrows — to a farmer, a laborer, an unemployed youth with so many dreams — is no easy work. It is all the more difficult if you are a descendant of a ruling family whom everyone looks at with awe. Rahul Gandhi is looked at with such awe — when he talks with people in villages and on streets or lifts a load of mud in a tagari with workers on a work site, or spends a night with them.
If he wants to be them or, as some political observers say, these are pretensions for political gains is a moot question. To be the 'other' for all times, or even some time, used to be a dream for revolutionaries. In neoliberal times, to be an ‘I’ is the dharma. So it adds to the awe as this Gandhi steps down from a pedestal to be the Other. And he keeps talking to people who rally to listen to him. He seldom makes a speech in the classical sense. He simply talks with people and engages them with questions, then pauses, makes them think and suggests answers.
In these times, when designed speeches and rhetoric draw more attention and are considered more important than peoples’ woes, someone who just comes and talks to people about their land, work, food and water is looked at with awe. He speaks a simple language, short sentences, no artificial constructs of speech writers but plain and simple thoughts, which are understood by all people.
See for example a rustic translation of an equally rustic speech: “When a laborer toiling in the field sees an aeroplane go by, he should be able to look up and say that his son will fly the plane one day. We want a Hindustan in which the poorest of the poor can have the biggest dream. If this does not happen I am not interested in politics.” These are simple statements of an emerging politician, ready to distance himself from dirty politics. What the public reads or sees on TV are headlines that seldom capture the tone of what is said and what it means to different people. When such speech touches the right chord people feel a healing touch but do not respond in loud voices or resort to chanting. They remain quiet and silent, listening perhaps to their own nascent voices just invoked. They still may not yet vote for this Gandhi but live the moment with him.
In these times, when what ‘I’ could do is so compelling and persuasive and is being accepted generally, even thinking about the 'other' is becoming difficult. In these moments, this Gandhi says, “Stop asking politicians how and what they are going to do; ask yourself how and what you are going to do.” When a youth addressed him as the future prime minister, he did not smile back. Instead, he asked him if he ever thought of becoming the PM himself. If not, why?
Recognized widely as a future PM, if not soon then in the not so distant a future, this Gandhi makes many such ‘incorrect’ political statements. Another example was “power is poison”. Some observers see this posturing and distancing from power merely as a means to gain more power. If that is the case, these are very different from the usual political tears. Instead of ‘I’, he says ‘you’ could do what I can do. A few months back his statement on poverty was misrepresented merely as a “state of mind”.
Instead what he said was that poverty comprises two elements: Poverty of thought (garibi soch main hai) and poverty in material conditions, the latter manifesting in food, money, education and so on. Referring to the experience of women’s self-help groups he said poverty of thought could be overcome by achieving self-confidence to voice, leading to politics of one’s own and a share in democracy and its institutions. In these neoliberal times when political spaces are sought to be occupied by corporates and the Bretton Woods institutions, a PM of the future talking about people’s politics is bad omen for those who look forward to mere growth, mainly economic growth, as the solution for all ills. Rahul Gandhi seems to shun the politics and politicians of the day.
He has said, “They say that 500 to 1,000 persons should run the country. This is wrong. Our politics is the politics of your dreams.” So here is this Gandhi who wishes to take this politics forward. He has expanded the number of persons who make decisions to select a candidate for elections. He wants to hear more voices from people who he wants to have the biggest dreams. This has annoyed many power brokers within the Congress who were looked after by a coterie. It is difficult to agree with all that the Congress party does, or all that Rahul Gandhi endorses.
However, this Gandhi is a different Congressman. His attempts to listen to gram pradhans on their views about selecting the right candidate for the MLA in their constituencies are more than welcome. This makes one believe that he is looking for more power with the people who are farmers, laborers, women and youth and have dreams to see and share, who would then make a strong society. Decentralism of power, where power emanates from the 'other', requires a multi-vocal configuration, which he is trying to construct.
Democracy gets strengthened when multiplicities are addressed, howsoever complex and hybrid political imaginaries there be. This is in sharp contrast to straightforward implementation of a unified coherent political philosophy. Rahul Gandhi’s agenda is not that ‘I’ would change the world. It is that the 'others' will change the world. He believes in this. He is silently redefining the current political moment. Why do we not want to hear this?
• Courtesy: Governance Now
Meeting a friend in his avatar as a member of the Aam Aadmi Party (Common Man’s Party) required cultural adjustment. Where should we meet? Certainly not on the exclusive floors of five-star hotels where seasoned politicians seek privacy as do captains of industry.
The India International Center, Habitat, even the India Islamic Center have the right ambience but they require membership and so cannot qualify as an Aam Aadmi rendezvous. What we, my friend and I, were looking for was the old fashioned Coffee House where teachers, students, journalists, artists, politicians once mingled inexpensively. Shall we look forward to a chain of Aam Aadmi Coffee Houses across the country?
The party, which exploded on the scene with the suddenness of revelation, simply does not have the time to stitch together a national organization before the general elections in May 2014. But there is a spontaneous local growth of AAP in the states in the aftermath of the Delhi results.
Should AAP concentrate on 80 Lok Sabha seats or spread itself across 240 in a house of 543? Opinion in the party is divided on this. It already claims some organizational presence across 300 districts. The surge in Delhi had reverberations even in states where its presence was less than rudimentary — Tamil Nadu, for instance, where its helpline crashed because of overloading.
Depending on the demands that Delhi makes on the leadership, the party would like to start working early for state elections in Maharashtra and Haryana due in October. It is particularly well placed in Haryana because some of its better-known leaders like Yogendra Yadav live in that state. This is the reason why his name does not figure in AAP Delhi cabinet. Prashant Bhushan has also kept himself out of government. He can now organize the party’s informal think tank and cast his eye on a wider turf for the general election and beyond.
Delhi, where AAP has arisen, can be a mean city, with deeply entrenched interests. The rapturous applause with which south Delhi and the club set had received the results is giving way to caution, a cunning reserve, eyeing both sides of the street.
This lot has been rattled by AAP. These are also powerful vested interests, which will fight tooth and nail for their survival. Every trick in the book, social media, stings and manageable news channels will be used to demoralize AAP.
In sharp contrast, are the tribe made famous by Sangeeta Richard in New York — the domestic workers. They sit huddled in groups in the park near my house along with the rickshaw drivers who have parked their vehicle outside the Metro station. There is a resolve here to consolidate behind AAP. A section of the media is already showing its colors. It did not even wait for the swearing in ceremony. It bared its fangs well in advance. At his press conference, Chief Minister designate Arvind Kejriwal promised that AAP will fulfill its promises, “but you must realize that I have no magic wand.”
No sooner had Kejriwal uttered “magic wand” than the anchor of a channel interjected. “Look how prompt he is with his excuses.” So the honeymoon period with the media may be short lived.
Corporate interests who control the media have gauged that AAP is not just a flash in the pan. It has national potential and could therefore disrupt larger game plans. A year ago, the media had hyped up a Narendra Modi versus Rahul Gandhi campaign. Modi rose to the bait but Rahul did not. Somehow, the Confederation of Indian Industry roped him in for an hour’s solo performance in April, which did not set the Yamuna on fire. Word went out that he would concentrate on building up the party.
The Dec. 8 election results must have disturbed India Inc. on several counts. The Congress was sinking; BJP did stand its ground in all four states but there was no discernible Modi magic. Upsetting all calculations, AAP came to power in Delhi within a year of being born.
The scenario is encouraging for regional formations. In this framework, even AAP is a regional force. And yet, unlike the Dravida parties or caste parties in UP and Bihar, AAP is neutral in terms of caste, community and linguistic regionalism. Since it was born in the nation’s capital, it looks much more cosmopolitan and all embracing.
Against this backdrop, what is the future for the Modi versus Rahul format? And, danger of dangers, should Snoopgate catch up with Modi, what future for him?
-
{{#bullets}}
- {{value}} {{/bullets}}