When BJP tears down the Gandhis, one can understand it, but when secular liberals start raining down sharp arrows on the Gandhi family, something seems drastically wrong.
The three-day Chintan Shivir of the Congress party claimed to have lifted the morale of the Congress workers, but Rahul Gandhi had once identified the party’s inability to connect with the people and give voice to their concerns as the main reason for the decline and he did the same this time. However, here I am going to discuss something else and not what happened in the “contemplation camp”.
Recently, India’s most highly regarded political commentator, Ramachandra Guha coldly declared, “The three Gandhis must immediately retire from politics altogether for the good of their party as well as for the good of the country” and also to “revive Indian democracy” it sent shock waves over political circles because he in a short span of time wrote around three nasty articles against the Gandhis that definitely gripped the Indian voter to a negative frame of mind against the Gandhis. Suddenly, even Congress workers were ferociously fighting among themselves about the Gandhis. Guha succeeded in a part of his plan.
In a 30-minute interview with Karan Thapar, Guha accused the Gandhi family – Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi – of being the “facilitators” of Hindutva authoritarianism. Of the three Gandhis, Guha calls Sonia Gandhi as the “principal culprit” for the near demise of the party and went on to say, “They’ll never get in power in Delhi again. It is a fantasy,” he declared, highlighting that the Gandhis have lost touch with the people, and the change India has seen over the decades.
“The best they [the Gandhis] can do for the people of India is to retire from politics,” he emphasized.
Ramachandra Guha’s “musings” usually arrive around the time of elections
Ramachandra Guha’s series of hammering articles against the Gandhis raises alarm bells. While he claims he is doing so to save democracy to build a viable opposition against the BJP, it seems a weak argument. Would not his method of targeting a pan-India secular liberal leader actually be weakening the Congress to help BJP more? A liberal attacking another is breaking the boundaries of ethics in the rules of the game.
A question arises, could Guha be “paid” to write bashing articles against Gandhis? The frenzied frequency of his articles did not seem normal and was almost hysterical. How could he save democracy by attacking one of the strongest democratic parties in India?
It is also very interesting that his criticism of the Gandhis intensifies around election time. If he was truly sincere about fighting the frightening trends of dictatorship seeping into party ranks and nullifying the barrages of hate speeches shrieking out from camps connected to the BJP, he would be careful to tone down his criticism of the Congress party leaders during elections, especially.
This leads to my question, why is Guha targeting the Gandhis so systematically? Could Guha actually be an “agent” of the BJP to stew doubt and fears in the Congress cadres to break them up?
Secular main media anti-Gandhi campaign
It was surprising over recent times to see news channels like NDTV and a few others go on an anti-Gandhi vent perhaps to flatten them out as it seems. It seemed strange that Rahul Gandhi, who fights vociferously for the freedom of the press, spoke up against detrimental designs of demonetization, for the rights of the farmers, reaches out to families of victims of rape and murders personally, for ill-treatment of minorities is being portrayed as a destroyer of democracy or a threat to India while they rarely ever point out the actual dangers raging in India! The media and certain writers and journalists seem to be working on an agenda against the Gandhis.
How relevant are the Gandhis?
Sonia Gandhi, following her husband, Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination was invited by Congress leaders to lead the party, but she declined. She finally agreed to join politics in 1997 after much pleading from the party; the following year, she was nominated for party president, and elected over Jitendra Prasada.
She proved to be a strong and concise leader and under her leadership, the Congress went on to form the government in the 2004 elections in coalition with other center-left political parties. Sonia Gandhi has since been credited for being instrumental in formulating the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).
Congress needs an overhaul, restructuring, renovation, streamlining, and more responsibilities to local heads with more dynamic movements but definitely not “Gandhis have to go” as Guha insists. Also, the party has to win its allies to form a strong opposition not only by giving adequate representation to its traditional voters but by recognizing their leadership.
In 2009, she again led the Congress party to victory, re-elected to power in 2009. She refused the premiership following the 2004 victory; she instead guided the ruling alliance and the National Advisory Council.
Sonia Gandhi was seen as the most powerful politician in India from 2004 to 2014 and was variously listed among the most powerful people and women listings by magazines. In 2013, Sonia Gandhi was ranked 21st among the world’s most influential and 9th most powerful woman by Forbes Magazine.
Politically, she is the glue that has held Congress together. Most Congress members in inner circles know that if Gandhis go, the party will splinter into pieces and this is basically what the BJP wants, Congress Mukt Bharat.
Sonia Gandhi has not bowed down to fascist dictates and always speaks strongly, clearly in her conscience against the pillars of democracy crumbling. She is a tough personality and this is why the BJP and RSS fear her.
Rahul Gandhi, a pan India politician is a central challenger of the BJP and RSS
While news agencies and writers such as Ramachandra Guha constantly drum in the insignificance of Rahul Gandhi, the opposite is true. The Congress is presently the main opposition party to the BJP and Rahul Gandhi’s presence is felt over states. He is in fact, the third-most important politician in India, after PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.
In the 2000s, the Youth Congress Party was weakening. In 2004, Rahul Gandhi was elected to the Lok Sabha. One of the first things he set out to do was revive the Youth Congress and revamp Youth Congress and NSUI organization. He introduced the election process for the first time in the Youth Congress and NSUI which allowed the entry of gifted leaders. Under his vibrant engaging leadership, Youth Congress saw a jump of 25 lakh primary members which has increased and expanded over the years.
Due to the urgings from Congress party veterans for his greater involvement in party politics and national government, Gandhi was elected Congress Vice-President in 2013, having served as the General Secretary previously. He successfully contested the general elections held that year from Amethi, a seat that was earlier held by his father; he won again from the constituency in 2009 and 2014.
Rahul Gandhi won the Wayanad seat in the 2019 general elections with over 60 percent vote share but lost Amethi. This defeats all argument that he was just “given a seat” because of “dynasty.”
Of note, Rahul Gandhi supported the farmers right from the day the three farm bills were placed in Parliament, opposing the farm bills, and has been at their rallies and called the movement ‘non-violent satyagraha’
While elections are not won on Twitter, Rahul Gandhi has a throbbing response from his fans on Twitter which outshines even Prime Minister Narendra Modi with his over 70 million followers and all other political leaders in India. Definitely, Rahul Gandhi is a force to be contented with, which is why nefarious elements are consistently working to wear him down into insignificance.
Perhaps, Congress needs an overhaul, restructuring, renovation, streamlining, and more responsibilities to local heads with more dynamic movements but definitely not “Gandhis have to go” as Guha insists. Also, the party has to win its allies to form a strong opposition not only by giving adequate representation to its traditional voters but by recognizing their leadership.