The scion of Nehru-Gandhi family, the greenhorn MP from Amethi, Mr. Rahul Gandhi on his election campaign of Uttar Pradesh is trying to score brownie points against his rivals by his immature utterances. Sample how Bangladesh came into existence, he takes the credit that his grand mother, Mrs. Indira Gandhi planned and executed the partition of Pakistan. This has created a diplomatic row, as India had always held that Bangladesh came into existence because of brutality of Pakistan Army.
Second, without being least charitable his talk of demolition of the disputed structure of Babri Masjid while the then Prime Minister, the late P. V. Narasimha Rao, could not prevent it. Mr. Rahul Gandhi claimed that had his father been the PM such horrendous display of religious intolerance would have not taken place.
It would have done the Congress Party a lot of good if Mr. Rahul Gandhi should have been briefed what to say and what not to say. Without arming him with a coherent alternative to the kind of regressive caste and communal politics preponderant in the state he has emphasised his family's 'pro-Muslim' credentials, has now apparently sought to beat the BJP at its own game by alluding to his grandmother's role in the creation of Bangladesh.
His campaign style smacks of identity management, the Congress's time-worn political-electoral approach in the Hindi heartland. But that is unlikely to revive its cloud-capped fortunes. Identity management can no longer deliver in UP. A perverse and degenerate form of composite politics, identity management has outlived its utility. The networks of identity management, which had, since Independence, apportioned the socio-economic pie and political power, came unstuck under pressure from a large mass of people displaced from their traditional habitats and livelihoods by the nation-building project of the '50s and '60s. That led to the collapse of the Congress consensus, and the eventual rise of competitive identity politics.
Rahul's concerted campaign in UP is a clear indication the Congress is desperate to capitalise on the wide-ranging nostalgia for the Congress raj under the Nehru-Gandhi family. And yet, Rahul's charisma would have translated into political-electoral gains, only if it had been supported by focused organisational and mobilisational work. The only agenda that could now match up to the party's comprehensive pre-independence programme, especially in UP, is that of social transformation. One that would seek to mobilise people on concrete issues, which are beyond the scope of traditional social identities.
Such aggregative politics, if it's allowed to take root, is bound to weaken the nostalgia for the Congress of the past, and thus undermine the central, almost dynastic position of the Nehru-Gandhi family. It is now for Rahul to decide on whether he wishes to be remembered as a dynamic leader who gave UP, and India, Rahul's pique is understandable as Rao posed the first serious challenge to the Nehru-Gandhi family's dominance of the party. He successfully completed his term, unlike the unfortunate Lal Bahadur Shastri, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's successor, who met an untimely death in Tashkent.
In essence, Rahul's statement amounts to a vainglorious boast for the vast majority of theists, who believe that not even a blade of grass can move without divine sanction. Whatever happens is preordained, while men and women play out their parts. Muslims and Hindus, revivalists and communists have all condemned his foot-in-mouth declaration, albeit for different reasons. The divine right to kingship is implied as much as his or some other kin's right to govern.
The imputation is that India is safe only in the hands of the dynasty, an idea that is utterly preposterous in the era of coalition politics. Since no single party or leader or family now dictates politics, the parliamentary ideal is better realised. The old unilateral system, which Rahul fondly remembers, works no more. The irony implicit in his call to end the rule of one-leader outfits such as the BSP and Samajwadi Party is lost on him. Otherwise, his mother, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, reported to be orchestrating party moves behind the Prime Minister's back, might take him to task.
A viewpoint that allows for free will and human errors would also pick holes in the Gandhi scion's theory that seems to ascribe infallible will to his family. It shows his lack of knowledge about our history and events of the past three decades. Or perhaps, he is feigning an ostrich-like ignorance. The Congress's espousal of communal politics after it inherited power from the British has served to ghettoise Muslims, anger Hindus and almost destroy Sikhs. Its lapses are too many to recount but a few need to be mentioned for the sake of truth. The gates to the disputed structure in Ayodhya were unlocked by a court order in February 1986 when Rahul Gandhi's father, Rajiv Gandhi, was the Prime Minister. Since the Congress, which ruled by an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, was then in a mood to woo Hindus, his government did not appeal against the order though it could well be to demonstrate its commitment to preserving the mosque's identity.
Then again, Rajiv and his Home Minister Buta Singh sanctioned the shilanyas or foundation stone laying ceremony for the Ram-janmabhoomi temple in November 1989. If the Narasimha Rao government at the Centre did nothing to stop the demolition of the mosque, it was because the Rajiv Gandhi regime had helped the VHP lay the foundation of the temple.
Immediately after Independence, Sardar Patel's initiative to restore the fabled Somnath temple on Gujarat's western coast was opposed by Pandit Nehru. The former was Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, and the latter, the Prime Minister. Nehru's objection was specious, hinging on the West's perception of India. In letters to State Chief Ministers, dated August 1, 1951, he stated, "The recent inauguration of the Somnath temple with pomp and ceremony created a very bad impression abroad about India and her professions." Earlier, when images of Lord Ram and his retinue appeared inside the Babri Masjid on the night of inside the Babri Masjid of the night of December 22, 1949, Nehru ordered that they be removed. Then UP Chief Minister, Govind Vallabh Pant, declined to do so, observing that it could anger Hindus.
Thus, before he dons the mantle of leadership, Nehru's great grandson would be well advised to brush up his knowledge of India's history and his family's role in communal politics.
RE:RE:Rahul\'s Immaturity
by Prabhakarn Prab on Apr 23, 2007 10:41 AM Permalink
Rahul is a changed voice different from caste ridden, might abuse and lawless UP. He is a promise I can see. Encourage him, show him the right path which will give the nation a dynaamic person, whom we can hope things would happen... a Great Expectation - or else the misrule of BSP,SP,BJP rule which we witnessed in last 15 years will continue and nobody can hope for a change.
RE:Rahul's Immaturity
by Ram Sharma on Apr 23, 2007 11:04 AM Permalink
prabhakaran rahul is very arrogant person and says that only their family can rule india. other 110 cr people are fools. this is a blatant lie. this type of attitude is bad for democracy.
RE:Rahul's Immaturity
by ashok leyland on Apr 24, 2007 01:40 AM Permalink
Prabhakaran: what was he and his family doing all these years to change the injustice? The right path is out of Indian politics, out of the big houses and priviledges the family has in Delhi and UP, out of the picture paying their way for everything they consume.
