Dr Satish Misra
As the country moves closer to election time, debate on Guajrat Chief Minister Narendra Modi (NaMo) versus Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi (RaGa) is bound to intensify with political analysts and commentators giving their judgement as to who is what and what is good for the electorate and who is bad for the society and nation.
While NaMo’s track record and style of governance is a known quantity, RaGa is handicapped as he has not held any public office so far, therefore only his statements on the political system or his view on society and polity form the part of the debate.
NaMo is making promises of transforming the country’s governance and delivery systems which are backed by his government’s achievements during the last 11 years in Gujarat and therefore may or may not convince the country’s electorate but RaGa carries a heavy baggage of his party and family’s deeds and misdeeds.
The Congress has ruled the country for almost 50 years and RaGa willingly or unwillingly would have to carry the historical burden on his shoulder and move forward. He cannot disassociate himself either from the party or from Nehru-Gandhi family.
NaMo has to prove that what he has achieved in Gujarat can be achieved in the country and whether what is good for a coastal state would be equally good for the entire country of India’s size and diversity.
Gujarat model of economic development, which is being showcased by NaMo and the BJP, has not resulted in reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. Undoubtedly, there exists a public perception that Gujarat has done well on economic parameters but it is contrary to facts on the ground. Businessmen and industrialists have been favoured as they have received land at concessional rates and there have been instances where scarce resource like water use has been changed in favour of an industry.
Public perceptions are created and sustained by media which is largely controlled by business and industry and here NaMo’s style of favouring the corporate lobby gives him an advantage over his rival including RaGa.
Public memory is short and often immediate. On this test, the BJP has an advantage while the Congress has a huge confidence deficit as every case of corruption or scam during nine years of the UPA government would go into its balance sheet. No chest beating about weakness of coalition politics would offer a respite to the Congress in the general elections.
Given the scenario, RaGa’s stressed focus on his party seems to be the correct strategy. If problems confronting the party have been identified, then it would be easy to find their solutions.
Power in democracy does not come through force but through people’s support. Public support in the parliamentary form of democracy is expressed through secret ballot. Political parties are the vehicles of the popular expression.
It is a known fact that the Congress’s organisational strength has been coming down over the years as there exists a huge disconnect between its leaders sitting in state capitals and national capital and people.
Power can come only if the party is healthy and fit and RaGa seems to be aware of it and that is why he has been talking of the party and its state of affairs. If he says that the decision making in his own party like in others is concentrated in few hands, then he, while stating the obvious, is also making a statement that this needs to be corrected.
A relevant question in this context could be as to how he proposes to correct this. It is indeed surprising to me that his views on this have been glossed over by the media as media by nature is in a permanent state of hurry rushing for deadlines and hunting for breaking news.
In his role as AICC general secretary in-charge of Indian Youth Congress (IYC) and National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), RaGa pushed these two organisations of the Congress to elections and some young leaders have emerged out of this exercise.
If the Congress needs to be connected with the people at large it would necessarily have to find the pulse of its rank and file. Democratising the party structures is the best way of establishing rapport with the party workers and through them with the people at large.
While the country particularly its youth is in a hurry to find answers to its numerous problems and fulfilling aspirations of millions, it would be a folly to offer ill-thought out solutions and RaGa appears to be consciously avoiding walking into that trap.
If the party can be made fit and battle ready with an enthused and dedicated cadres and a band of young thinking leaders, then power would easily come. Solutions to any problem can only be found if a set of well meaning leaders are available.
Best of brains do not come to politics and RaGa is aware of it and that is why he appears to be serious in creating conducive environment for attracting talent to the political pool of the Congress. If he succeeds in doing it then whether he becomes the prime minister or remains the inspiring force behind the throne would be irrelevant.
Tasks confronting both NaMo and RaGa are different and it would be a huge national blunder if comparisons between the two are made and we make similar expectations from both of them.
While NaMo would have to prove that he can deliver results in accordance to huge expectations he is arousing among the people, RaGa would have to make the Congress worthy of fighting battles before he becomes the national instrument for evolving suitable and appropriate action plan for realising people’s potential for the larger good of the teeming millions. [IFS]