#dnaEdit: Rahul’s retreat

The consensus among political observers and the silent majority inside the Congress party is that party vice president Rahul Gandhi does not qualify to be either a politician or a leader. Surprisingly, dynasty sycophants have turned sceptical about the charisma factor of the presumed heir-apparent. There is clamour in a section of the party for the induction of his sister, Priyanka Vadra Gandhi. A seasoned party office-bearer once remarked that it is not what the party wants but it is what party president Sonia Gandhi-Rahul-Priyanka decide that matters. 

It is reported that Rahul had applied for leave to think matters over. This has raised eyebrows as well as given rise to much derision. Many believe that Rahul Gandhi has been an unqualified failure and that the electoral decimation of the party in the 2014 Lok Sabha and the state assembly elections that followed has been entirely due his unimaginative leadership, his inability to get along with the senior members in the party and his failure to create a new vibrant next generation. This has resulted in meaningless bickering in the party corridors. The seniors are arguing that Rahul cannot hope to run the more-than-a-century-old party with a bunch of greenhorns.

Rahul’s aides counter saying that it is the seniors who are creating the hurdles to prevent Rahul from carrying on the necessary reforms in the party. The most predictable palace intrigue is being played out inside the party, with the Sonia and Rahul factions pitted against each other.  Observers are reaching out to the conclusion that this indeed is the clear symptom of a dying party. 

The commentators have a different take altogether. They have a simple solution to the Congress woes: Sonia and Rahul should do the decent thing and leave the party. They think that more than Sonia, it is Rahul who should throw in the towel as it were and declare that he is quitting politics altogether. Political renunciation is the critics’ mantra for Rahul.  The received wisdom among the independent observers of the Congress is that the cause for the decline and decay of the party is due to the stranglehold of the Nehru-Gandhi family over the party, and the remedy lies in the family giving up its feudal claims. There is general anger all round in this outer circle that Sonia and Rahul are not doing what is good for the party, that is of taking political sanyas.

In the decade that Congress had been in power, Rahul has been described as a reluctant politician, a label that was used for his father, Rajiv Gandhi, as well. But Rajiv proved his critics wrong and took over the party. He had his own “computer boys” who were resented by the party veterans of the day.  Rajiv fell back on the apparatchik when he lost the 1989 election and he was fighting to get back a foothold during the 1991 election when he was assassinated. Probably, Rahul will have to struggle too, falter and fumble before he manages to get a grip over issues. He may have to make peace with the old warhorses in the party while keeping his own team in place.  The possibility that he will not succeed, because he does not have it in him to be the leader that the Congress needs, is not to be ruled out. But this issue of his ability and his credentials has to be decided by him, by Sonia and by the party. Whatever helpful solutions that others may have to offer may not be of much relevance.