Off-centre | Going, going… back! The strange case of Rahul Gandhi’s defamation conviction

What does Bharat (not I.N.D.I.A) make of the Supreme Court’s verdict on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the defamation case? First of all, it is just that — a stay on conviction. The actual case will be considered on its merits separately. Right now, the apex court has ruled that the lower courts’ verdicts, including that of the Gujarat High Court, do not hold. This judgement is very significant for a variety of reasons, some rather surprising. To begin with, let us consider the public reaction, at any rate what we can gauge of it in the immediate aftermath of the decision. To put it simply, it is one of benevolent indifference rather than jubilation in his constituency, relief from his supporters, or disappointment among those who dislike Gandhi. Gandhi, in other words, is no longer appears central to Indian politics. People had actually got used to his being on the margins. No matter how much his own party may project him as an all-India neta of great stature or consequence, the people of India seem to have moved on from expecting much from him. His electoral fortunes will be decided next year in the general elections which he is almost certainly likely to contest. But whether his return to Parliament will matter to most Indians is really doubtful. He will remain what most people perceive him to be — the spoilt and politically ineffectual princeling of the Congress. Which brings us to his party’s response to the verdict. Naturally, it was one of triumph and victory, if not elation and ecstasy. For sure, they were happy to score a legal march over the BJP after so much of a dressing down in the lower courts, not to mention the humiliation of their leader losing not only his seat in the Lok Sabha but being unceremoniously booted out of his residence too. But what is also clear, even from the body language of the participants in the Congress’ post-victory presser, is that Rahul baba has been brought down a notch or two. Flanked by his arch advisor and handler, Jairam Ramesh, and the party’s legal luminary, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who finally came through, Gandhi said little and looked somewhat chastised. He positively resisted being over-fed with the cloying milky barfis that were being stuffed down his throat by party president Mallikarjun Kharge, actually refusing the second sweetmeat from the former and any sugary offering from leader of the party in the Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury. Instead, he tried to feed Kharge somewhat precipitously, which the latter resisted, at which point the video was clipped. But the press conference did clarify one or two questions that had intrigued observers of the entire melodrama of his disqualification, including his petulantly self-righteous refusal to apologise for his careless or insensitive remarks on all thieves having the surname Modi. The most obvious of these questions was why the Congress defence was so weak in the lower courts. How is it that crucial weaknesses in the prosecution, including the maximum penalty being accorded without a separate deliberation on determining what the fair quantum of punishment might be for this offence, were never highlighted earlier. It seems from Singhvi’s presentation that they have kept their legal power dry for the Supreme Court, deliberately not bringing out the bigger guns in the lower courts. Why? Perhaps, the Congress wanted to derive maximum political advantage from Gandhi’s conviction. Everyone in India knows that politicians have said many palpably worse things than Gandhi in public meetings during the heat of the moment. None were given a two-year sentence, which debarred them from elections for eight years, in addition to serving two years in jail. The feeling that the punishment was excessive, if not politically motivated, might have been strengthened by the fact that all the cases against Gandhi for his Modi remarks were filed by BJP party members and activists in states ruled by the BJP. This, indeed, was one of the points made by Singhvi in his press conference. The links of some of the judges in the Gujarat lower courts to leaders of the ruling party had also come out in the press earlier. Thus, the political angle in the targeting of Gandhi, despite whatever intemperance or imprudence on Gandhi’s party, seemed obvious. Gandhi also went to town in his foreign tours playing the victim card and disparaging Indian democracy because of this harsh conviction. Yet, as observed earlier, this entire courtroom drama, dragging on since 2019, has neither enhanced Gandhi’s stature nor endeared him in the eyes of the public to any significant degree. The reason? You don’t become a great leader by name calling your contemporary opponent as a “chor” (thief) or a past ideological adversary and national hero, Veer Savarkar, a coward for apologising to the colonial authorities. Nor by himself peevishly refusing to apologise—after already having apologised that same year, 2019, for defamatory remarks on the Rafale deal. That fact is that stubbornness is not bravery; real courage does not derive from name-calling. Gandhi’s zero track record in any position entailing national or state-level administrative responsibility, let alone political office, makes him an unsuitable leader no matter how many padayatras he undertakes or fiery speeches he delivers at rallies. Therefore, if the Congress strategy was to let the defamation conviction play out till the Supreme Court in order to milk the Gandhi-as-victim card, then it has not really benefited the party or its leader. In fact, one faction of the Congress would be positively unhappy to find him back in the lower house and thus, willy-nilly, at the centre of national politics once again. But, all told, the relief for Gandhi and the party cannot be denied. India, to them, especially its justice system, is not altogether lost to them as it must have seemed in setback after previous setback. On Monday, August 7th, the Lok Sabha secretariat will decide whether Rahul Gandhi can return to the Parliament. After which, we might consider how the ruling party is taking this turn of events. [To be concluded] The writer is an author, columnist, and professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views._ Read all the Latest News , Trending News ,  Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.