Back to the future in Rahul Gandhi’s politicsRahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra was an attempt to return to the pre-Independence Congress strategy of separating the politics of the narrative from the politics of everyday state power.
As Rahul Gandhi walked the 3700 or so kilometres from Kanyakumari at the southern tip of India to Srinagar in its northern-most state in his Bharat Jodo Yatra, there was one question that perplexed most observers: his refusal to even discuss day-to-day political issues. He barely campaigned in the assembly elections that occurred during the Yatra and he made it clear in his multiple press conferences that he saw any question on everyday politics to be a diversion. As the yatra was clearly political – Rahul Gandhi attacked the RSS and Hindutva at virtually every speech during the yatra, and most of the participants were politicians – how could everyday politics be a diversion? The answer perhaps lies in the history of the Congress party. In its heydays, during the national movement, the Indian National Congress maintained a fairly sharp distinction between a larger political narrative and the requirements of the pursuit and maintenance of state power. Mahatma Gandhi built his politics around the narrative of non-violence while Nehru, Patel, and other Congress leaders focused primarily on the everyday politics of gaining power. Gandhi did use his narrative to influence the course of the freedom movement. This influence reached its peak quite early when, in 1922, he called off the non-cooperation movement as a result of the killing of policemen in Chauri Chaura. While his narrative continued to influence mass politics right up to the Quit India movement in 1942, his ability to influence everyday Congress politics consistently declined. In a letter Nehru wrote to Gandhi in 1945, he made it clear that Gandhi’s philosophy would not find a place in the politics of independent India. And true to his word, the post-independence era saw Nehru pursuing a path influenced by Fabian socialism on the one hand and non-alignment on the other. It was the beginning of the close intertwining of the politics of the narrative and the politics of state power. The merger of the two politics contributed to the decline of the narrative in the overall politics of the Congress party. To be sure, the ideal of democratic socialism did appear to gain deep roots in the 1950s. It not only dominated the political discourse but went all the way down to the popular cinema, particularly in the success of the films of Raj Kapoor. But by the 1960s the idealism had begun to wear off. The defeat to China in 1962, the near famine of 1964-65, and the heightened internal wrangling within the Congress, all contributed to the decline of idealism and an increased focus on the everyday politics of state power. When Mrs. Indira Gandhi emerged out of the debris of the old Congress, she sustained the merger of the politics of the narrative with the politics of state power. She developed Garibi Hatao, her pro-poor slogan, into a narrative that suited her everyday politics of power. If Nehruvian socialism demanded people accept the long gestation period for the development of India’s scientific-industrial base, Garibi Hatao promised immediate benefits for the poor through the Green Revolution-enabled Public Distribution System. She strengthened the narrative by nationalizing banks, bringing with it the promise of cheap loans to the poor. And when she had little to offer the poor, she strengthened the narrative by being anti-rich. Mrs. Gandhi abolished the privy purses that were promised to the princely rulers as a part of their kingdoms being integrated into independent India. The success of this narrative saw Mrs. Gandhi win substantial electoral majorities, going up to a point where she gave the impression that she could put up a lamppost and make it win. In the process, she, in effect, converted the parliamentary system into a presidential one, with elections being centred around a single individual rather than the party. In taking the practice of Indian democracy away from a parliamentary system and towards a de facto presidential one, Mrs. Gandhi was going against the wisdom of the makers of the Indian Constitution. The Constituent Assembly was of the view that a parliamentary system was, among other things, better suited to deal with India’s diversity. Parliamentarians across the country would be able to bring the local concerns of their constituents to the attention of the government in Delhi. A sensitive government would then be able to knit these diverse concerns into a consistent and cohesive national policy. The concentration of all power in the hands of a single individual in Delhi meant that parliament would no longer be able to play this role. Local concerns would only be addressed if the powers that be in Delhi believed these concerns were electorally significant. Electoral minorities of various hues could no longer be heard. The voice of the majority alone was to influence policy. As long as those who potentially benefitted from a dam were more numerous than those whose lives were uprooted and destroyed, the pain of the losers did not matter. One consequence of this deeply entrenched majoritarianism was the emergence of pockets of angry electoral minorities across the country. When these electoral minorities could emerge as majorities in smaller areas they supported regional or local parties. But when the electoral maps were not favourable, they were often not averse to resorting to forms of extremism. Rajiv Gandhi inherited this polity, with its merger of the politics of the narrative with the politics of state power, and made things worse. He institutionalized the dominance of the leader over the elected members, through the anti-defection law. The law ensured that elected members would lose their seats if they voted against the party whip. Members of elected bodies had to then vote for party policies even if it went against the interests of their constituencies. He may have also been misled by the huge parliamentary majority he won after Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s assassination and the mobilization of mass anger against Sikhs. The size of the victory apparently gave him the impression that he could be all things to all people. He appealed to extreme Muslim sentiment in the Shah Banu case and to extreme Hindu sentiment in the Ram temple issue. He tried to paper over these contradictory positions through a narrative of a young prime minister preparing the country for the 21st century. The image of India being groomed to become a major global player had its attractions, but it was not enough to overcome the daily pressures of change in an India that was just beginning its journey into high growth. Homegrown politicians set out to first prick the ‘Mr. Clean’ balloon through an effective campaign against the deal on the Bofors gun. And it did not help that his international intervention went terribly wrong in Sri Lanka. By the time he lost power and was assassinated, India was left with an economic crisis and a polity divided on religious lines. The emergence of PV Narasimha Rao should normally have seen the Congress party return to a period of greater sensitivity to the concerns of elected representatives. Narasimha Rao did not have the mass appeal of Nehru, Indira Gandhi, or even Rajiv Gandhi. But instead of seeking a return to the traditional, if chaotic, methods of the Congress he chose to rule under the umbrella of the anti-defection law. This power allowed him to bring in a professional economist as the finance minister leading up to Manmohan Singh’s liberalization process and economic revival. What has not gained much attention is the fact that Narasimha Rao simultaneously abandoned the battle for the narrative, leaving the field free for the rise of Hindutva. It is tempting to measure the rise of Hindutva through the emergence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but this is a limited view of the prominence of this narrative. This narrative extends beyond one individual, or even one party, and influences several other political parties, including regional ones. This narrative was built around the campaign for the Ram temple in Ayodhya and the demolition of the Babri Masjid. This campaign and the narrative around it was led by Lal Krishna Advani, even as the benefits in terms of state power went primarily to Atal Behari Vajpayee. The two did try to separate the politics of the narrative from the politics of state power. Even as the narrative of Hindutva developed an aggressively radical tone, Prime Minister Vajpayee was seen as its moderate face. Interestingly, this separation of the narrative from state power in the BJP did not last. The rise of the Narendra Modi phenomenon was accompanied by the merger of the politics of the Hindutva narrative with the politics of state power. The Hindutva narrative of Prime Minister Modi has often taken on an Anti-Muslim tone. As BJP MPs, including senior ministers, chanted ‘Modi, Modi’ during the Prime Minister’s reply to the President’s 2023 address to parliament, it was clear that he is to the BJP what Mrs. Indira Gandhi was to the Congress. And as in the case of the Congress, the BJP may not be immune to the costs of ignoring the concerns of its individual parliamentarians, and hence India’s diversity. Against this backdrop of the post-Independence merger of the politics of the narrative and the politics of state power, Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra gains added significance. It represents an effort to break this merger, by keeping the anti-Hindutva narrative of the yatra separate from the politics of state power. It was thus critical for him to ensure that the politics of state power did not take over the narrative of his press conferences. It also explains his emphasis in recent months on the politics of diversity. He has repeatedly emphasized that India is a union of states – as noted in the opening line of the Constitution – and not a unitary state. And he has sought to create the impression of a separate politics of state power in the hands of an elected Congress president who is not a member of the Nehru-Gandhi family. The consequences for the fortunes of the Congress party of this separation of the politics of the narrative from the politics of state power will depend, among other things, on the course of two battles. The first is the course of the battle for the mind of the young Indian, between Hindutva and inclusiveness. Having largely abandoned this battle of the narrative since Rajiv Gandhi’s coming to power in 1984, Rahul Gandhi faces the phenomenal task of having to make up for nearly four decades of the Congress running away from the ideological battlefield. The theme of love-over-hatred in the Bharat Jodo Yatra seemed to strike a chord even in regions of the country that have seen conflict, including Kashmir. Time will tell whether this will develop into a lasting influence on young minds, or be no more than a passing fancy. The second battle is within the Congress party. For the separation of the politics of the narrative from the everyday politics of state power, the Congress party will have to develop an effective mechanism for dealing with diverse and often conflicting interests. The current mechanism of leaving the final decision to Rahul Gandhi will only end the separation of his politics of the narrative from the everyday politics of state power. It is thus imperative for the Congress party to create an effective party mechanism that will survive with or without the Nehru-Gandhi family. This is undoubtedly a tall order and may lead to a search for compromises. Possible compromises could include having Rahul Gandhi lead the narrative while Priyanka Gandhi immerses herself in the everyday politics of state power. But such half-measures would be no more than a band-aid over the deep cracks in the Congress party and would defeat the entire purpose of the Bharat Jodo Yatra. Indian political economy with Narendar Pani is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Indian political economy with Narendar Pani that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
Read Indian political economy with Narendar Pani in the app Listen to posts, join subscriber chats, and never miss an update from Narendar Pani.
|
