Nobody knows for sure whether Rahul Gandhi will stay the course. It is not a question that can be answered by either psychoanalysis or speculation. He is aware of the gravity of the political situation and understands the malaise in the Congress party.
The old guard and the young brigade across several states are insisting that he must reconsider his decision to quit as Congress president.
The overall impression in the media is that he is merely putting up an act and will be back in the saddle soon. Some others feel that he is irrationally or irresponsibly stubborn. A few ‘Rahul watchers’ say that he is sulking, mainly because of his frustration with losing Amethi.
Columnists like Pritish Nandy have strongly argued that he must continue as Congress chief. Strangely, they feel that the party needs a Nehru-Gandhi family member at the helm.
There are others, like intellectual-historian Ramachandra Guha, who have stridently demanded his resignation. Lord Meghnad Desai has said that Rahul Gandhi must quit politics for good and settle abroad.
Also read: Not Gandhi dynasty, but a Narasimha Rao-like figure can save the Congress now
Non-Nehru-Gandhi members on top
The question that is often raised about the future of the Congress is: Can the party survive if a Nehru-Gandhi member is not at the top?
The first time this question was asked was when Jawaharlal Nehru was alive and in action. In 1963, W. Hangen in his 300-page book titled ‘After Nehru, Who?’, offered several names who could succeed Nehru. The idea of a so-called ‘dynasty’ had not crystallised then. In 1964, Lal Bahadur Shastri succeeded Nehru as India’s Prime Minister, not Indira Gandhi.
It is important to note that there have been several Congress presidents from non-Nehru-Gandhi family – Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy (December 1959 to May 1962), S. Nijalingappa (1968-69), Jagjivan Ram (1970-1971), Shankar Dayal Sharma (1972-1974), D.K. Barooah (1975-1977), K. Brahmananda Reddy (1977-1978), P.V. Narasimha Rao (1992-1996), Sitaram Kesri (1996-1998).
The party was split twice during this period, in 1969 and in 1977. In 1977, Indira Gandhi and the ‘first dynast’ Sanjay Gandhi were defeated. Many analysts had then said that it was a ‘second Independence’ under the leadership of a ‘second Mahatma’, Jayaprakash Narayan. They were sure that the ‘Nehru era’ was over with the comprehensive defeat of the mother and son. Few even thought that the country had been freed from the yoke of the Congress rule (‘Congress-mukt’ was a term that was not in vogue then).
Dynasty revived by arch foes
If the ‘Peoples’ Revolution’, as the Janata Party’s victory in 1977 was described by some, had not collapsed within the next three years, the ‘dynasty’ would have ended then and there. But the ‘dynasty’ was revived by its arch foes.
Also read: Why the Congress party should stop apologising about dynasty
Charan Singh challenged the Morarji Desai government and toppled it in 1979. He took Indira Gandhi’s support and became Prime Minister. The deal between Indira and Charan Singh was struck by Sanjay. Later, Indira Gandhi withdrew her outside support to the Charan Singh government and it collapsed.
The 1980 Lok Sabha election brought Indira Gandhi back to power.
It was Indira Gandhi’s assassination that brought Rajiv Gandhi into limelight. Sonia Gandhi was fiercely opposed to Rajiv taking over as the PM (My Years with Indira Gandhi by P.C. Alexander). If Sonia was keen to continue the ‘dynasty’, she would not have opposed Rajiv Gandhi becoming the PM.
It is amusing that neither Varun Gandhi nor his mother Maneka Gandhi is ever accused of carrying forward the dynasty.
They find prominence in the BJP essentially because they are members of the Nehru-Gandhi family. If instead of Sonia Gandhi, the family baton was passed on to Maneka, then would it not have been described as dynastic succession?
Recognition for dynasty
After Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in May 1991, there was no Nehru-Gandhi member at the top of the Congress for nearly seven years. Almost immediately after Rajiv’s assassination, the entire Congress Working Committee had unanimously decided to make Sonia Gandhi the party president. She politely but firmly refused.
It was after the defeat of the Narasimha Rao government in 1996 and the collapse of three successive governments (Vajpayee’s 13-day government followed by Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral’s short stints as prime ministers) that Sonia decided to join active politics in December 1997.
If in those seven years, the stars in the Congress, like Sharad Pawar, Madhavrao Scindia and Digvijaya Singh, had established their leadership within the party, Sonia Gandhi would not have joined, or they would not have felt it necessary to request her to come and take charge of the party. So again, the ‘dynasty’ did not impose itself on the party, but was urged by the top leadership to rescue the party from further decline.
Also read: The political dynasty nobody is talking about: Sardar Patel’s
Sonia Gandhi had failed to lead her party to success in 1998 and 1999 elections. She was labelled a failure. The opposition and the media condemned and ridiculed her for her accent, for being a foreigner and for not understanding a complex country like India. (The same commentators later called her sagacious, confident and even statesman-like).
The Congress could have dumped her as Sharad Pawar indeed tried in 1999, by splitting the party on the question of her foreign origin and creating a new outfit, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). But Pawar’s breakaway group could not inspire confidence and except for a few, most Congress leaders remained with the Sonia Gandhi-led party.
In Sonia Gandhi’s nearly two decade-long tenure as Congress president, the ‘dynasty’ tag became a stigma. Although there was criticism against Sanjay Gandhi in the 1970s and Rajiv Gandhi in the 1980s, dynasty was either accepted as part-and-parcel of realpolitik or tolerated because ‘there was no alternative’.
In 2004, when the BJP thought that Sonia Gandhi would become the Prime Minister, all hell broke loose – Sushma Swaraj threatened to shave her head in protest while Uma Bharti said it ‘will be the darkest day in the history’ of India if Sonia became the PM.
Sonia’s refusal to become the PM made her a living legend and later the one wielding the ‘remote control’ of the Manmohan Singh government. The alleged indirect ‘dynastic control’ was condemned, but the political class also took it in its stride. All parties, including the BJP, always looked up to Sonia, even when Manmohan Singh was the Prime Minister. It was a kind of recognition for the ‘dynasty’.
Revival & survival
The term ‘dynasty’, however, became an expression of virulent abuse and disgust only after Rahul Gandhi took to the political stage. For the last 10 years, Rahul has been the target of the opposition and the media. He has been viciously ridiculed and derided as unintelligent. He has been widely abused on the social media. Prime Minister Narendra Modi almost took a wicked pleasure, like a bully in school, in running down the persona of Rahul Gandhi. Perhaps, no other person has suffered the kind of humiliation that Rahul has.
And yet, from Akhilesh Yadav to Uddhav Thackeray, from M.K. Stalin and Kanimozhi to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Sukhbir Singh Badal and Omar Abdullah, everyone is party of dynastic politics. But the national condemnation and barbs are reserved only for the Gandhis.
Also read: Smriti Irani’s makeover: From being most disliked Modi minister to dynasty slayer in Amethi
The Indian National Congress is currently in dire straits, but still enjoys a vast following among people and has a legacy of over 130 years. It can revive itself and survive with or without the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. If the Congress could march ahead after Nehru’s death and Indira and Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, falling and rising again, why can’t it do the same after Rahul Gandhi’s resignation?
But Rahul has made it amply clear that he is not retiring from politics (to oblige Lord Meghnad Desai) nor running away from the mission he has chosen. Can we say that the Nehrus do not retire, nor do they give up?
The author is a former editor and Congress member of Rajya Sabha. Views are personal.