Dangerous politics of Rahul Gandhi and the ‘3.5% Rule’ of regime change

Ignorance is bliss. It is a cliché. But when one talks of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, this is all one can think of. He, after all, seems to have made a habit of falling for his own lies, and then taking the discourse to a dangerously divisive level.

So, here comes one. Seeing a Sikh gentleman during one of his events in the United States, Rahul Gandhi gets interested. He asks the gentleman his name. And then he tells the audience that the fight in India right now is whether a Sikh can wear his turban or not…

This is where his ignorance comes into play. Rahul seems so confident in what he is saying that he doesn’t even realise that the only time, post-Independence, Sikhs in India had to hide their turbans was when his own grandmother, Indira Gandhi, was shot dead by two of her Sikh bodyguards. Forget turbans, thousands got their kesh (hair), one of the Five Ks in Sikhism that a Sikh should always have, cut to hide their identity in the 1984 pogrom that saw more than 3,000 Sikhs brutally killed in three days of Congress-sponsored mayhem in the national capital — a pogrom which for Rahul’s own father, Rajiv Gandhi, was just akin to the earth shaking after a big tree falls.

And Rahul is angry. Angry at being rejected electorally time and again. When added with his ignorance about India, it creates a deadly cocktail where he can say anything, absolutely baseless stuff, and won’t even blink his eyes once. His ignorance and anger make him believe everything he is tutored about.

Rahul Gandhi similarly manifested, and proudly displayed, his ignorance when he flashed a copy of the Constitution soon after the Lok Sabha results. For, the only time the country saw its Constitution in abeyance was when his own grandmother, Indira Gandhi again, decided to impose Emergency in 1975.

But then why bother? Ignorance is bliss! Or, maybe he believes people in India have short memories!

This brings us to the question: How should one deal with a person who seems to know so little, or maybe he doesn’t care? In normal times, the answer would be to just let it be. He, after all, provides the much-needed humour quotient to the otherwise cutthroat, unrelenting 24x7 political culture that the Modi-Shah duo has introduced in Indian politics. But, Rahul can no longer be ignored. One, he now occupies a constitutional position of being the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha.

Meanwhile, something has drastically changed in Rahul Gandhi’s politics, especially since CAA and so-called farmers’ protests. His statements suddenly have stopped being funny; they have turned divisive, if not dangerous.

Rahul Gandhi must understand that every nation, including the United States, has problems. In fact, the innate deception in the US electoral system, as highlighted in the last few presidential polls, is astounding; even the American judiciary is accused of carrying political bias. But one doesn’t find American politicians trashing the US system on a foreign platform. Moreover, if India has certain niggling issues pertaining to administration and governance, Rahul Gandhi as the country’s LoP, has the responsibility to deal with them. He also needs to understand that if India is not perfect — democratically, socially and economically — then a major part of blame rests with his own family and party.

Criticising a party or an individual is one thing. But it is definitely not expected from a mainstream politician to summarily dismiss India, Indian democracy and the Indian story, especially from a foreign platform. It was equally unsettling to see India’s LoP having more good things to say about communist China than his own democratic India.

There are reports saying how certain groups with dubious, anti-India credentials, whether of the Khalistani or the Islamist kind, were on an overdrive during Rahul’s US visit. He further added fuel to the fire by meeting known anti-India elements such as Ilham Omar, whose sympathies for Islamist Pakistan are well known. Some of these people belong to the mischievous toolkit gang covertly working on the infamous “3.5% Rule” — perfected by Gene Sharp during the Cold War and after. For the uninitiated, Gene Sharp is credited by many to be “indirectly responsible for more revolutions than anyone since Lenin or Mao”. As per the 3.5% Rule, you don’t need the majority to make a regime change in a country: All you need is a minuscule but highly committed minority — Gene Sharp believes only 3.5 per cent of the total population can do this.

Gene Sharp, in his book The Politics of Nonviolent Action, lays stress on two points to initiate a regime change toolkit programme: One, the so-called protest should be non-violent, at least it should appear to be so, so as to take the moral high ground. Two, he formulates the “technique of struggle”, according to which he asks his followers to use symbolic colours, parades, vigils, banners written in English (to get global attention), mock awards, economic boycotts, divestment campaigns, and strikes, besides resorting to psychological interventions such as fasts.

One gets a déjà vu-like feeling while reading the two points: Did we not see them happening in India on so many occasions in the past 7-8 years. So, why did they fail to deliver so far? One obvious reason is that India is genuinely a very large and diverse country for one idea to hold its imagination. It is near-impossible to stir the country with one agenda. Even Indira Gandhi’s Emergency saw two contrasting reactions: While the north completely rejected the Congress in the 1977 elections, the south went ahead with the GOP! This is where the toolkit that works well in countries like Ukraine, Egypt or even Bangladesh doesn’t gather momentum in India.

The second reason for the failure of these toolkits in India is quite interesting. These toolkits are perfected to do well in largely illiberal, undemocratic societies. But India has a thriving democracy with well entrenched liberal, plural values. Gene Sharp, while elaborating on this aspect, was categorical enough to say that one fundamental toolkit for regime change is to provoke the government of the day to overreact and resort to violence against orchestrated non-violent protests within the country. Gene Sharp invokes the term “political jujitsu” — using the stronger opponents’ energy against themselves, rather than confronting it head-on — to explain the phenomenon. Sharp writes, “When the system largely characterised by political violence is actively, albeit non-violently, challenged, one can expect that the basic nature of that system will be more clearly revealed in the crisis than during less difficult times. The violence upon which the system depends is thus brought to the surface and revealed in unmistakable terms for all to see: it then becomes more possible to remove it.”

India, being a democratic, liberal nation, both constitutionally as well as civilisationally, is prone to deal with protests with debates, discussions and deliberations, rather than confrontation and violence. This explains why even amid grave provocations amid the so-called farm protests and despite credible information about certain anti-national elements covertly supporting these agitations, the government never stopped talking and even rolled back the provisions that saw the opposition.

This, however, doesn’t mean India should stop worrying about these undemocratic challenges. For a toolkit group that believes it just needs 3.5 per cent of the total population to uproot a government, it’s a risky proposition to ignore the alarming signals. The government should reach out to the Opposition, including the Congress, and come to a political consensus that political opposition cannot become an India-baiting exercise, especially on an international platform. One hears many voices, especially in the social media, to take legal actions against the Congress leader for his utterances in the US. This will be a self-goal. For, that’s exactly what the toolkit gangs want India to do.

India has always had a healthy Government-Opposition relationship. Not long ago, PV Narasimha Rao had sent Atal Bihari Vajpayee to lead the nation at the United Nations. The gulf may have widened over the years, but it is still not big enough not to be bridged. There are, after all, many leaders in Opposition ranks who mean well and for whom India’s interest remains paramount.

Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.