Don't blame Rahul, Congress debacle was Sonia's fault

Let’s be more charitable while assessing Rahul Gandhi. Yes, he scores a grand zero on a scale of ten on parameters of leadership and grasp of matters politics. It is difficult to be more liberal given the Congress’ performance under his stewardship over the last few years. He has appeared confused in his India vision and totally incompetent in connecting with a changing, restless India. But do his weaknesses as leader tell the complete story of the Congress’ rout in the general elections? Not really. Because his influence in a party virtually controlled by a syndicate of senior leaders, might be highly exaggerated. It has been clear to everyone in the Congress that the rot runs deep and unless the party revives in the states the top would eventually collapse. It has been out of power in four states accounting for 200 seats for more than 25 years and in another four accounting for close to 90 seats for more than 10 years. Its vote share across the country has been dipping alarmingly — it stood at a shade over 19 percent this election — and even new parties are eating into its traditional vote bases without much effort. The success of the AAP is a case in Delhi and Punjab. [caption id=“attachment_1535877” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi address the media after the election results were declared. AFP[/caption] The primary reason behind this is the debilitating factionalism in the state units and the virtually unbridgeable gap between leaders at the intermediate levels and the grassroots workers. In Madhya Pradesh, there is an intense battle for control of the state unit among three influential leaders. These leaders don’t even mind putting up candidates dummy against the official ones to undercut the latter’s chances. Take out the regional variation, it is the same story in all the states. In Karnataka, two factions of the party, one headed by ‘migrants’ headed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and the other by ’natives’ led by Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee president G Parameshwara—are in a virtual state of war. In Odisha, no one knows who runs the party, ditto in Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Punjab. Of course, the case of the big north Indian states such as UP and Bihar is too obvious to merit a discussion. This is not a recent problem. The trend of keeping the leadership in states weak vis-a-vis the central leadership started under Indira Gandhi in the 1970s and there has been gradual realisation in the party in recent times that it is having a damaging impact on the party’s growth. To be fair to the Congress vice-president, he has been underlining this at several fora inside the party for quite some time now. During the assembly election campaign in MP and other states he tried to make it clear to party workers that he would not be swayed by considerations of proximity and personal loyalty. The move was aimed at diminishing the influence local and regional chieftains. However, nothing seems to have changed. The same set of leaders from states which brings absolutely no value to the party continues to hold sway in the process of candidate selection and campaigning at the local levels. Curiously, most powerful leaders of the state factions have their own go-to persons in Delhi. There is an elaborate system of loyalty and patronage at play even at the second rung which the party has not been able to tackle so far. Rahul has been demanding structural changes within the party and emphasising on elections at all levels to induct fresh blood into the organisation, he has been demanding elections to the Congress Working Committee and several structural changes in the party too make it more representative. If nothing has come out of his efforts, the blame should lie squarely on the ‘syndicate’ and the ultimate voice in the party, Sonia Gandhi. It is known that Rahul’s efforts to revamp the party have triggered a war between the guard and the old guard. While there are allegations that Sonia has been unduly indulgent about Rahul, evidence suggests that she has been too patient with the old guard. If nothing else, the party’s continuing decay in states should have spurred her to action long ago. The dismal performance of the party throws a rare opportunity for the leadership to jettison the deadwood and bring in new blood. It has to begin afresh, it has no other go. And it has to rebuild itself step by step, state by state.