If the Gandhi dynasty can save Congress from itself, why not?

If it were a film one would have been tempted to walk out of it by now because it is pretty obvious where it is heading for. I’m of course talking about the general election campaign which, barring a miracle, is set to end in a crushing defeat for the Congress.

In a highly symbolic view, the party itself has thrown in the towel - the equivalent of walking out of a predictable film - by not naming Rahul Gandhi as its prime ministerial nominee. The challenge before the Congress is such that even the seemingly almighty political dynasty “the prince’’ in Narendra Modi’s parlance—has developed cold feet. This will, of course, not be the first time that the Congress will have been punished by voters. Besides, winning and losing elections is the stuff of a healthy popularly democracy.

My concern here, though, is over the current debate on the inner functioning of the Congress, more specifically the obsessive focus on its dynastic element. There is an almost visceral outrage over the party’s heavy dependence on its so-called “first family’’. And it, often, seems that it is being sought to be punished not so much for its many acts of omission and commission—cronyism, corruption and a disconnect from ordinary people—as for propping up the Nehru-Gandhi family and thus promoting anti-democratic dynastic rule.

I’m no fan of the Gandhis,  and detest the idea of a dynasty, political or otherwise. I also believe that Rahul Gandhi is the wrong man for the job that is being thrust on him. Like his father, Rajiv, he is a reluctant heir to the throne. But here’s the question: what if tomorrow Sonia Gandhi packs her bags and returns to Italy and Rahul decides to chuck politics?

One simple answer is : nothing will happen . Nobody is going to miss them. For the fact is that despite the Congress’s apparent belief in the Nehru -Gandhi family’s magical powers it long ceased to be the currency it once was. Beyond the gates of 10, Janpath and 24, Akbar Road, it has no cachet anywhere and has become irrelevant to the wider Indian politics. So much so that even the dynasty’s traditional strongholds such as Amethi and Rae Bareli are no longer safe. It will make no difference whether the Congress is led into elections by a scion of its first family or anyone else.

But here’s another question. What about the Congress? What happens to it without the dynasty? For it is the glue that holds it together. Remove it and the party is likely to disintegrate – torn asunder by inner power struggle as we saw when after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi it was constantly in turmoil because of the simmering struggle for supremacy between Narasimha Rao and Sharad Pawar factions. So, whither Congress sans the dynasty?

The answer to this question depends on one’s valuation of the Congress: Whether one should really worry  what happens to it. The dominant view, judging from the prevailing intensely anti-Congress mood, seems to be that: no, we shouldn’t. No tears need be shed if the Congress wants to tear itself apart.

If it can’t hold itself together let it perish. In the competitive Malthusian world of politics let the fittest party survive. That, however, is a somewhat technocratic answer which ignores the continuing political relevance of the Congress. I’ve ever voted only once for the Congress in my life but I believe that, for all its myriad sins, the nation still needs the Congress. It is the only party that is truly national. Not just in terms of its physical spread but, more importantly, in the way it encapsulates India’s bewildering social and cultural diversity. It is the one political banyan tree under which all of India can take shelter when the chips are down.

For all the talk of “development’’, Indian politics is becoming increasingly divisive and heavily polarised. On the one side is the Bharatiya Janata Party’s exclusivist brand of “rashtravad’’, and on the other the caste-driven politics of the likes of Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalloo Prasad Yadav— not to mention a plethora of fissiparous regional parties and groups.

Throw into this mix the Aam Aadmi Party’s anti-politics political antics and we have all the makings of a deadly witches’ brew. At such a moment, we need a party that is conceptually equipped to transcend the divide and rise above the fray even if it does not always do it.

No doubt the Congress itself is guilty of cynically exploiting sectarian divisions and playing the minority and caste “cards’’ (indeed it can be said to have started it all in the first place) but that’s the nature of the beast called Indian politics. Where the Congress is different and what, therefore, makes it less dangerous despite all its cynical ploys is the fact it is such a big tent that no one tendency can ever dominate to the exclusion of all others.

The party has a long tradition of an inclusive vision for India, however distorted it may have become in recent years. And it is a vision that resonates with the overwhelming majority of Indians. Rather misleadingly, it has been dubbed the Nehruvian idea of India but in fact it derived from the collective thinking of some of the finest secular nationalists of its time such as Sardar Patel, B.R. Ambedkar and Maulana Azad.

The Congress as the party of freedom struggle became a vehicle for articulating and putting into practice this collective all-embracing vision. In theory that remains its core ethos. The disintegration of the Congress will create a vacuum at the heart of pan-Indian secular politics. If a fading dynasty can help avert its collapse, let’s not be too sniffy about it.