Off-centre | The prodigal returns: Will Rahul Gandhi behave himself?

In my previous column , I analysed some of the implications of the Supreme Court’s staying of the lower courts’ conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case against him. The remark why do all thieves have the name Modi, reportedly uttered in a rally in 2018 got him into trouble. The Surat sessions court sentenced him to the highest possible punishment, imprisonment for two years, which also meant his being debarred from Parliament for eight years. He was instantly removed from the Lok Sabha and also forced to vacate his official bungalow. Now it remains to be seen how soon the Lok Sabha secretariat reinstates him. The maximum time that they can keep him out is two months, after which his lawyers may file another petition for the apex court to enforce the apex court’s verdict. But some grace is expected in this matter. After all, Gandhi is not a criminal, even if his remarks were irresponsible. It is hoped, as per the Supreme Court’s remarks during the hearing, that he will be more statesmanlike in the future. The criminal defamation case against him, as mentioned earlier, still stands. It will be decided on its merits in the lower courts in due course. We already considered how his own party, the Congress, is taking this legal victory of sorts. But what does his return mean to the ruling BJP? The answer depends on whom you ask. One group is quite happy that their star campaigner on the other side of the political divide is back. With Rahul as Modi’s main opponent, the BJP’s job will be easier. What is more, the newly cobbled alliance, I.N.D.I.A will also be disappointed. They were counting on no Congress heavyweight being in the forefront of their fight against Modi. But every political party in India, especially the leading ones like the BJP and the Congress, have several teams — from A to Z — working for them. In this case, the so-called “dirty tricks” department of the BJP or to put it more politely, the anti-Gandhi hardhitters, have certainly suffered a setback. In a campaign of legal overkill, they filed several cases from different BJP-ruled states, as Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gandhi’s council pointed out, in what appears to be a clearly coordinated and orchestrated political campaign. The Supreme Court’s ruling might discourage this in the future. In a fair and square political fight, the better candidate ought to win on merits, on being fitter to represent a particular constituency. Or, if the fight is at the highest level, to lead the country. An  opponent’s being disqualified by a legal legerdemain does not augur well for a democracy. The BJP in allowing this method was also testing its limits and utility. Now they should know. In the more serious cases pending against the Gandhi family, including the National Herald case or the various land-related cases against Robert Vadra, the BJP’s A-team or top leadership has not been keen, it would seem, to press for conviction, let alone imprisonment. Their objective appears to be to discredit, if not disgrace, the clan rather than putting them behind bars. Why? Because Gandhis, wings-clipped but still visible, are more useful to the BJP than Gandhis whose political future is finished. That this strategy has paid rich dividends is obvious. India’s oldest and once-largest party, which ruled the country for nearly sixty of its seventy-five post-independence years, has been reduced from its highest tally of 414 in the eighth Lok Sabha under Rajiv Gandhi, to 44 seats under his son, Rahul, in 2014. In 2019, the Congress did slightly better, adding another eight to take its tally to 52. A weakened and divided Congress under the Gandhis is the BJP’s best bet. Therefore, Rahul’s return should not disturb them much. The legal implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling, however, are important. It is clear that the top court of India can still make influential, even crucial, interventions in Indian politics. The judiciary’s independence is the cornerstone of any democracy. India’s Constitution makers were very clear on this. That is why they ensured a separation of powers between the three arms of the government, the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. There is a limit to how much an elected government can stack the deck in its favour. This limit was crossed only once, during the run-up and the actual state of Emergency in India (1975-1977). No one in their right minds would want a return to those days, even if they are, at times, irritated by an over-interventionist judiciary, usurping the powers of the Legislature or the Executive. There were many loopholes in the prosecution’s case. Quite a few, although not all, have been utilized by the Congress legal team. If there are 1.3 crore “Modis” how is it that none of them, except BJP workers and leaders, took offence over Rahul’s loose tongue? Also, how can “Modis” constitute a homogenous group or class of people if even the three Modis referred to by Gandhi belong to three different communities—a Gujarati OBC, a Marwari businessman, and a Jain diamond merchant. Moreover, does insulting someone in a political rally constitute a heinous crime of the highest moral turpitude as alleged? If so, how is the offence bailable, compoundable, and attracts only a maximum sentence of two years? The Congress has proved that it still has many smart people working for it. They or the eco-system they represent cannot be wished away or totally destroyed. In the great game that is Indian politics, give and take has always been the norm. Excessive polarisation, whether religious, political, ideological, regional, linguistic, or casteist, is not good for the health of the nation. Both the ruling BJP and the struggling-to-survive Congress can derive valuable lessons from the Supreme Court verdict. Gandhi, for one, might do better to mind his language and act his age, conducting himself more like a leader of consequence than a brat. The BJP, too, might wish to concentrate more on fundamental issues than merely trying to disable opponents through legal means or law enforcement agencies. [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 .