“Leadership is action, not
position.”
India’s youngest political
heir Rahul Gandhi is all set to lead India’s oldest National Party, the Indian
national Congress in the forthcoming 2014 Lok Sabha elections. However, instead
of focusing on the policies and the paradigm shift from the older Mrs. Gandhi
to the vibrant Rahul and the Congress strategy to get the requisite
numbers or the policies that may be adopted, the question doing the rounds is
whether Rahul Gandhi is the perfect candidate to lead the Congress and is he
Prime Ministerial material? This isolationist targeting of one individual
speaks volumes about the immaturity of the Indian mentality. I am yet to
witness like treatment to other members of the Indian National Congress or any
of the members of other parties being questioned and scrutinised to this
detail.
Rahul Gandhi, an active
participant of the first family in Indian politics is one of the favourite
subjects for the Opposition here in India. The youth leader is popular for
being a recluse in assuming key positions in the government preferring Party
responsibility to direct governance. Many of the Opposition leaders consider the
young scion to be a ‘recluse’ shying away from media attention and a man who
does not want to assume official responsibility.
Unfortunately the media
portrayal of the junior Gandhi has been graphical but never complete. This
demure gentleman has a different style of working and an attitude that
typically defies conventional Indian Polity. What the common man is aware of is
that he is famous for lashing out without reservations against the Mayawati
government when the need arose. He has been vociferous in his advocacy of the
plight of the farmers in Maharashtra (The famous Kalavati case in Parliament
made headlines at that point) The Congress leader has ensured that he has
consciously turned down every offer to be a part of the Cabinet. And this is
where the conflict in our story occurs. The Indian populace is acclimatised to
the notion that if their leaders are not working with a formal position in the
centre, or if they aren't a part of the erstwhile Cabinet committee either they
are not worthy of it or they aren’t too confident of yourself. In the case of
the young Gandhi, people have been quite blatant in assuming the latter, a
proposition which is only a sign of hasty judgement for a leader who has spent
less than a decade in politics.
Rahul Gandhi has invited media
attention not only as a politician; read the New York Times 1989 edition and
you will see a prejudice against him even as a young lad. His entry into St.
Stephen’s was perhaps the first of many controversies to follow. The Times of
India newspaper simultaneously and quite sensibly took the lead stating the
controversy over Rahul's entry into St. Stephen's “is indicative of how
insensitive our social reactions have progressively become.” Much later when he
entered the political fray the hullaballoo was raised as to whether he had
completed his degree or not, the irony being that educational qualifications
are not a constitutional pre- requisite for any candidate standing for the
elections. Much later the issue died a natural death. Some believe it is the
price you pay as a celebrity. I think it’s the peril of being a Gandhi.
In 2004, when he was chosen by
his mother as the candidate from Amethi, the speculation started as to whose
footsteps would he follow. Would he be an aggressive male version of his
grandmother Indira or his soft spoken yet firm politician father Rajiv? The
second inconsequential question was why he and not his equally charismatic
sister Priyanka had been chosen to contest the elections. It was stated in The
Guardian that some political commentators
believed that the main effect of Rahul Gandhi's run for office would be
to stop the decline of the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh. Rahul won with a
thumping majority. Unfortunately, different sections of the Indian diaspora be
it the Opposition, the media or the people have always been comparing the heir-
apparent to the legacy that he carries with him. What we fail to understand is
that each politician has his own USP. By comparing the various generations of
politicians and the class of politicians this family has produced, we are only
committing a reprehensible error. Where Pandit Nehru lived in the comfort of
luxury, Rahul too lived a privileged along with the knowledge that his father
and grandmother had been brutally assassinated and the additional awareness
that almost half the country did not accept his mother only due to her Italian
origin. Hailing from a family that has gifted the country with three Prime
Ministers, it is difficult to keep up with the tenor of the Indian polity
especially when your vision is a long term goal where the rest of the political
class is worried about the immediate benefits.
If one observes at the outset,
defying convention for the better is something the Nehru-Gandhi clan embellishes.
Motilal Nehru was a moderate who believed that Indians should play a part in
politics whilst under the British stronghold on India. He believed in moderate
politics and is reported to have even told his son that this was the best
solution. Jawaharlal Nehru on the other hand pursued aggressive nationalism and
held close the idea of a Free India. Post –independence India had NAM under the
aegis of Nehru, a concept which the world had not countered until then. His
daughter Indira earned the title, ‘The only man in the Cabinet’ for her grit
and determination. The analysts wrote her off after 1975. Her comeback was
least expected but nonetheless it happened. Her son Rajiv was a politician
forced- in- the making it seemed on the face of it but very soon the Indian
mise-en-scène changed and he was the fresh face of the Indian democracy. Bofors
marred his tenure and with the tragic death of Rajiv Gandhi India lost another
part of this family’s legacy.
The reason behind listing the
varying personae of the Gandhi family is to bring to the reader’s notice that
each generation is surrounded with a different circumstance, a different
outlook and each one pursued a different path towards the same goal. Each made
their fair share of blunders and history is witness that each of them emerged
as better leaders. In the case of Rahul Gandhi, notice that he prefers to work
at the grass- root level, something most politicians should be doing but really
aren’t.
Why grassroot politics is
essential:
The theory of Bharat versus
India may not be accepted but no one can refute the fact that there exists a
divide between rural and urban India and urban India itself is further divided
into the privileged and unprivileged factions. Amidst all this comes a
politician who believes the best way to win the confidence of the people is to
be among them, away from the limelight.
To quote the man himself, “If
the country is to be changed, it cannot be changed from the top, it can be
changed from the ground level. Policies can be from the top, ideas can come
from the top, thoughts can come from the top, but their implementation has to
be at the level of municipalities, panchayats and wards” Much to the chagrin of
some of my readers I find nothing wrong in this ideology. In fact I find it the
hallmark of a true leader. The need of the hour is to connect with the
proletariat in order to get the system working.
Opposition and criticism
especially in Politics is inevitable but revulsion to the name not the policy
is unacceptable. The South Asian Mail recently quoted a senior BJP leader’s
statement on Rahul Gandhi comparing him to a wedding horse. The statement which
received sharp criticism from the Congress reads, “The horse is always stuck at
one place. It does not move. Similarly, Rahul Gandhi also does not move. Many
efforts are being made to get him to do something, but he doesn't. Some try to
push him but he still refuses to move. Till the time he isn't ready, how can
Manmohan Singh do anything? This is the crisis today.” The crisis unfortunately
is less with Rahul Gandhi’s methods of functioning and more with the
Opposition’s expectations from him to function in a stereotypical fashion in a
typecast political rut.
What has various leaders
disgruntled is not this young leader’s choice to refrain from assuming a post
in the Government but their inability to understand why he has chosen this
path. A politician may make a Cabinet but the Cabinet is not the only criteria
to be a certified excellent politician. Unfortunately, many seem to disagree with
this proposition. The wanton hype created by right wing leaders and their loyal
party workers has almost ensured that masses have already a pre- conceived
notion that this young leader may not their best choice. If one consciously
spends some time to read through you will come across these following oft-
neglected facts :
- In 2004, in an interview to George Iype, Rahul Gandhi’s mission statement was, ‘I will create a new brand of Indian politics.’ And he did. According to the DNA newspaper, the number of Youth members grew from a dismal two lakhs to a whopping twenty- five lakhs under this same dark horse. A resurrection of a nearly defunct organisation led to a positive difference in youth participation, a facet of party politics that most others quite regularly neglect. The IYC in Tamil Nadu (a non-Congress – ruled state if I may add) itself saw 12.5 lakh youth joining hands with the young leader.
- This young leader believes “Truth’ is the most important principle in politics.
- His method of open membership in the Youth wing of the Congress has ensured that people interested in becoming members are inducted directly into the organisation. The aim is to increase the cadre-base and to empower the youth of the country by helping them enter the political sphere. Those criticising him could possibly take note that with the Parliament home to octogenarians and septuagenarians what India currently needs is maximum young blood in the political fray and that can only happen if there is someone who knows the political arena like the back of his hand. The Congress has left that responsibility to Rahul Gandhi. In fact the other parties should perhaps follow suit in the interest of the nation.
The reason behind this
article is to bring to light that a politician without a Cabinet position is
capable of creating a difference. Talk about the Gandhi family and 1975 comes
into the picture. What many have quite
clearly forgotten is the family's positive contributions in the pre- Emergency and in the post Emergency era as well.
This heir apparent has made his fair share
of mistakes but how can any politician learn without making a mistake. For now
we need to give him some space to bloom independently rather than live in the
shadow of his family’s past. He has already proved his mettle with the young
people in the Congress, and it is his class of non- media loving people
oriented politicians that India needs today if we really need want a
progressive state.
For his part Rahul is no
political accident. His lifeblood in that sense is politics. What is
unacceptable is trying to fit him in the mould of the ancestry he belongs.
Unfortunately, politics is not determined by your lineage but your performance
and just like the others even Rahul Gandhi should be judged by his performance
in the years to come. I find it miserable that each time I tweet about the
young leader I am countered with baseless allegations filled with sarcasm and
dry humor in bad taste. Rather than speculating on whether he would make a fine
Prime Minister for it is time to take cognizance of his vision and his interest in
furthering grassroot politics and youth participation. If he prefers to follow his path without receiving the
limelight on the National front so be it. Judge him on his methodology not his
name.
"Do not be led by others,
awaken your own mind,
amass your own experience,
and decide for yourself your
own path."
-The Atharva Ved
May be its time to let this
young leader choose his own path.
To end this piece I rephrase
what the 1989 Times of India stated,
'Whatever be any party's
disagreement with Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s (*or any of the previous of the Gandhi)
policies, they should not be brought to bear on his offspring.''
Katherine. A
The writer does not bear any
affiliations to the Indian National Congress or any other political party. The
views expressed are personal.
