In Shakespearean tragedy, the protagonist’s hamartia, or fatal flaw, prompts him to take actions that lead to his own undoing. Rahul Gandhi’s hamartia, like Hamlet’s, is indecision. To be or not be Congress president, whether it is nobler to sit on the sidelines or to take up arms against the BJP; that is the question.
Gandhi’s fuzzy agenda and inability to stay the course has contributed to the party’s current mess. From the day he stepped into active politics in 2004, he has changed direction and shifted goalposts haphazardly, confusing his own cadre. Quitting abruptly, without a succession plan, is a typical example.
This is by no means the first, or even the worst, electoral defeat the party has suffered in recent years, but it is the first time that Gandhi saw fit to mount the moral high horse and offer his resignation. While the move was commendable, his prolonged sulking is not.
The objective may be to bring the Congress party to its knees and stave off any criticism of the first family. If so, it has succeeded, but at a cost – in state after state, middle-rung leaders have left the Congress for greener pastures. More than a month has elapsed since his resignation and the tragedy is rapidly descending into farce.
He knows perfectly well that no member of the Congress can bell the cat, ie, propose anyone other than a Gandhi to lead the party. His successor’s legitimacy hinges on the support and approval of the first family. In effect, until Gandhi chooses a successor, he remains de facto president.
But the family has not had a comfortable experience with its nominees. Sonia Gandhi chose senior party leaders in 1991, 1996 and 2004 to hold the reins, but the 1990s were characterized by palpable tension between the family and party presidents of its own choosing.
Neither PV Narasimha Rao nor Sitaram Kesri proved to be as pliable as anticipated. Hence, Sonia Gandhi’s decision to take direct control of the party, only to have an ‘Et tu, Brute’ moment with Sharad Pawar and Purno Sangma (who had served as leader of the Opposition and Speaker respectively).
Dr Manmohan Singh proved a godsend in that respect; dignified yet pliable, efficient yet accommodating. Even so, his very success in the 2009 Lok sabha polls triggered alarm bells, or so it appeared. Anyhow, his second term was rocky, a marked contrast to the smooth going of his first.
Gandhi’s behavior appears to stem from a sense of hurt vis-a-vis the Congress old guard. From his reported remarks at the Congress Working Committee meeting in May, it is evident that he feels they have let him down. They are the Claudius to his Hamlet. Why else would the party have been humiliated in the very states that it had won just a few months earlier?
The trust deficit between the family and the Congress establishment has historical antecedents and so does Gandhi’s behaviour. One might say the prince is haunted by his father’s ghost. He has sought, just as his father did in the late 1980s, to marginalise the old guard and bring in his own cronies.
As soon as he took over as Congress vice-president, Gandhi made no bones about wanting to recast the party completely. His intentions seemed pure; he wanted to make the party more representative.
But when his abortive attempts at free-and-fair elections to party posts didn’t pan out, he gave up. He engaged with NGOs and pundits in India and abroad and inducted ‘grassroots’ figures into his inner circle (this, too, proved short-lived).
Alongside his ‘NGO’ politics, he sidelined veteran politicians in favour of handpicked lightweights, cronies and dynasts. The cronyism and darbari culture continued, only the faces changed. The more connected the party was with Lutyen’s Delhi, the more disconnected it became from the grassroots.
Eventually, many of Gandhi’s pets fell out of favour, when they consistently failed to deliver. The veterans proved rather more successful, improving the party’s position in Gujarat, securing a non-BJP government in Karnataka and pulling off four assembly elections. No VP Singh-like figure has emerged to challenge the family, but the fear is ever-present.
If Gandhi’s sincere desire is to clear the way for a new leadership of India’s oldest party, he has to facilitate a smooth succession. It may be a gamble, but it is one worth taking, because a vacuum at the top can only engender chaos.
Bhavdeep Kang r is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author.
