Rahul Gandhi: Bad Manners

CONGRESS LEADER Rahul Gandhi’s foreign visits, particularly to the United States and United Kingdom, are marked by heavy doses of India’s domestic politics. While he introduces the caveat that it is for Indians to settle their arguments, he is often reproachful of western governments for not questioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi more and instead viewing him as a leader of consequence. In his third term as PM, Modi has a wealth of experience in dealing with global stalwarts and India’s successful presidency of the G 20 last year showcased its influence in multilateral settings. It is not a coincidence that he is seen as a likely intermediary in the conflict in Ukraine and his schedule at the UN general assembly this year will be packed with meetings with world leaders, business honchos, the Indian diaspora and innovators as he discusses global affairs and presents India’s prospects to investors.

Rahul Gandhi, however, has a darker picture of India to offer abroad. He feels Indian democracy is neither fair nor representative, asserting that if Lok Sabha elections had been impartial, the Bharatiya Janata Party would have much fewer seats than the 240 it won. He has not offered any evidence why he feels the elections were vitiated when a mandatory check of electronic voting machines as per the Supreme Court’s orders did not reveal any miscount. Very few candidates who lost narrowly have bothered to seek a recount by availing the window offered by latest SC order issued when polls were underway.

In fact, anticipating that BJP might win another majority, activist lawyers and some political leaders were preparing to challenge the legitimacy of the results in the courts except for the fact that the much-maligned EVMs delivered an unforeseen result. But Rahul’s belief that the elections were skewed in BJP’s favour is not just posturing. The Congress leader truly believes that the capture of institutions is complete, whether it is the judiciary, media or administration. “The institutions have been captured…we don’t have a fair playing field. The education system is captured by the RSS, the media is captured, the investigative agencies are captured…,” he said during an interaction in Washington this week. He said the message did not resonate with people until an aide suggested holding up a copy of the Constitution. The gesture worked and India’s oppressed grasped what Congress was trying to say, he said. Apart from the astounding suggestion that this is what it took to get voters to realize democracy is in peril, there is no reflection why – if indeed disaffection is so widely spread – Congress faced a third successive defeat.

The calumny of India’s democracy is rooted both in an inability to analyse failure and a serious misreading of the electoral message delivered by 642 million voters (constituting a 65.7% turnout). No doubt the jump in the Congress tally from 52 to 99 has led to Rahul being discussed as a likely PM. But the discussion among voters was hardly about Rahul as PM candidate in the way Modi was in 2014. It was, of course, understood that he would be leader if Congress won, but conversations with voters hardly threw up any mention of Rahul unless in response to a direct question. Rather the debate centered around subjects such as a third term for Modi, the disgruntlement of certain castes, perceptions that BJP’s “400 par” slogan represents a desire to dismantle reservations and local or regional issues. The hierarchy of issues changed from state to state and sometimes within states as well. BJP fell short of the target it set for itself but 240 seats after 10 years in office is not a bad showing, certainly sufficient to form a coalition government that stands on a solid block of BJP MPs.

The polarization of India’s politics means the restrain exercised till recently by leaders like L K Advani and Manmohan Singh on foreign soil has evaporated. But it is not just that. Rahul seems to truly believe his views about the diminution of minority rights in India are not only correct but shared by others. He pointed to a Sikh in the audience in Washinton DC to say the battle in India is whether the person would be able to wear a turban and kada (bracelet) and visit a gurudwara. The attire of Congress’s Sikh legislators from Punjab would offer contrary evidence.  The individual Rahul pointed out later denied facing any discrimination in India but the leader was not to be distracted from his case that the rights of minorities have declined under Modi. In an ironic twist, Khalistan advocate Gurpatwant Pannu jumped into the fray, endorsing Rahul’s comments as evidence of discrimination against Sikhs. The convergence boggles the mind given that Operation Bluestar, the assassination of Indira Gandhi and the anti-Sikh riots – events that occurred under Congress’s watch — fueled Khalistan separatism. Pannu’s approving comments should be cause for alarm in the Congress quarter.

In recent months Rahul has championed the need for a caste-based census to assess the progress of various segments of society and devise policies for them. Elaborating on his theme, he said scrapping reservations could be considered once India became a fair place which it is not at present. He subsequently clarified his comments to dispel the impression that he had suggested doing away with affirmative action to say he has in fact called for a breach of the 50% constitutional cap on reservations. But the slip-up is telling. The leader’s comments indicate the backward caste-quota political rhetoriis not natural to him. A seasoned caste warrior would never speak of scrapping reservations in any context. Certainly not after contemporary evidence of how such a perception hurt BJP.

The presence of Democratic member of Congress IIhan Omar, known for her espousal of Islamist causes and who have been critical of India, in a delegation that met Rahul is more grist to the mill. The choice is injudicious given Omar’s positions on issues like Khalistan, Kashmir and minority rights where she routinely spouts anti-India propaganda. It was not scheduling issues that prevented her from speaking at the Chicago Democratic party convention that endorsed Kamala Harris. Her harsh denunciation of Isreal makes the party wary of her. The presence of activists who are part of anti-India lobbies on issues like the citizenship amendment act, Article 370 and the Ram mandir in Ayodhya in the Congress leader’s interactions is deeply disconcerting.

Congress fancies its prospects in the current round of elections in Haryana, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir. Encouraging results will be read as proof of Rahul’s popular stature. Indeed, this will be credit due if the party does well. Yet, state elections are essentially about local incumbency and state-level leadership. The danger for the Congress party does not lie just in the inappropriateness of Rahul’s remarks or the more immediate political fallout. There is a thick line between conveying a point and overdoing it. Broad strokes may work better in communicating an idea or argument to a mass audience but the articulation needs to be credible. Repeatedly claiming that 90% of Indians are unrepresented in India’s democratic processes begs credulity besides raising the uncomfortable question about what did Rahul do to set this right when Congress-led central governments held office  from 2004 to 2014.

About The Author

Rajeev Deshpande

•