We can debate till the end of time whether Mrs. Gandhi is the cause or product of the decline of the once proud party of Indian independence. It is a futile debate of at best academic interest. For the decline is a fact.
Similarly, we can debate endlessly whether Mrs. Gandhi could have, if she had so wished, reversed this decline and restored the Congress to its old health and dignity. This too is a futile debate. That she has not even tried is also a fact.
Two other points are indisputable. First, she alone could have kept what passes for the Congress in power for so long at the Centre and in several states – from the time of the first split in 1969 to March 1977 and from 1980 onwards. The evidence in the shape of the failure of all other Congress leaders to command significant support is there for anyone to see. Indeed, in retrospect, it is open to question whether without her leadership, still open to challenge then, the party would have secured even a bare majority in the Lok Sabha in the first post-Nehru general election in 1967.
Secondly, given her own personality and the state of the party after the two splits, especially the second one in 1978 when the Congress was reduced to a rabble, it was unavoidable that near total power would come to vest in her when she won a landslide victory in the election to the Lok Sabha in January 1980.
Sharing Of Leadership
The second observation clearly deserves to be qualified. Sanjay Gandhi had emerged as a powerful factor in Indian politics in June 1975 regardless of whether or not he was primarily responsible for the declaration of internal emergency then; and his influence in the affairs of the Congress did not decline with its defeat in March 1977. On the contrary, it can be said to have increased in that he played a key role first in persuading Mrs. Gandhi to split the party in January 1978, then in bringing down the Janata government and finally in selecting the Congress (I) nominees for election to the Lok Sabha in January 1980. All in all, it can be argued that the Congress (I) returned to office in 1980 not under the leadership of Mrs. Gandhi but under her and Sanjay’s joint leadership and, indeed, that power would have passed increasingly into his hands if he had not died in the air crash in June that year.
But this only confirms the conclusion I am wanting to draw. Which is that given Mrs. Gandhi’s personality and the concentration of so much power in her hands and the state of the Congress, especially after the second split, she could have shared leadership and power only with her son, Sanjay Gandhi in the first instance and Rajiv Gandhi now.
The popular view is that while Sanjay forced his way into the citadel of power, Rajiv has come in reluctantly. The difference in the temperaments and personalities of the two brothers is obvious and important. But it is not pertinent in the context of the proposition that if Mrs. Gandhi was (and is) to share power and was (and is) to try and bequeath it to someone, it had (and has) to be to her son.
Her critics have repeatedly accused her of wanting to establish a dynasty. They have even said that she has deliberately emasculated other Congress leaders and practised the cult of personality in order to ensure that her son succeeds her. Mrs. Gandhi has naturally denied this charge. But this too is a futile debate. Events could have shaped differently if the Janata had not cracked up so quickly and so easily in 1979, or if the victory of the Congress (I) in 1980 had not been so spectacular. To put it differently, Mrs. Gandhi could perhaps have acted differently only if she had had to function under certain constraints. Since such constraints have not been in place, things could not have turned out differently.
Again, a caveat needs to he entered, indeed two or even three. Mrs. Gandhi could have lost heart after Sanjay’s tragic death and just carried on. Rajiv could have firmly refused to enter politics. He could have proved wholly inept in the new profession so different from his self-chosen one. But, as we know, none of these things has happened. Rajiv is now firmly in the line of “succession” to Mrs. Gandhi. She has “anointed” him to the extent she can and he has accepted the “anointment”.
If one is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to her, one can argue that she has acted in the best interests of the country. A fairly good case can be made in favour of the proposition that the people need a symbol around which they can gather in the post-Indira period and that Rajiv can be such a symbol. For, all major political parties are a shambles and Rajiv is a decent young man who has provided enough evidence to show that his heart is in the right place, and that he does possess certain qualities of leadership.
Rajiv’s Build-up
A discussion of Mrs. Gandhi’s possible motives is, however, also a pointless exercise, especially after the AICC session in Bombay last October and the Congress plenary session in Calcutta last month. As a result of these two meetings Rajiv has emerged as the acknowledged leader of the party second in importance only to Mrs. Gandhi. The key question now, therefore, is whether or not she is going about the task of ensuring his “succession” in a proper, that is, in an effective, manner.
Some of her actions in this regard such as the extensive use of the government-controlled All India Radio and Doordarshan to project him and hints, if not orders, to ministers that they make way for him on occasions such as the distribution of bank loans to poor individuals (in the presence of the Union finance minister) raise questions of political propriety which cannot be brushed aside. But we may side-step the propriety aspect for the time being and concentrate on whether these actions are likely to produce the desired result, or prove, to use an American jargon, counter-productive.
The question of Rajiv’s “succession” to Mrs. Gandhi has three components – his acceptability to the Congress party, to the people and to the intelligentsia. So the effectiveness or otherwise of Mrs. Gandhi’s actions has to be seen in the context of all these constituencies.
Mrs. Gandhi has not had to struggle particularly hard to sell Rajiv to the Congress party. In its present shrunken, disorganised and demoralised state it has been waiting for a saviour from above. A fairly large section would have gladly accepted Maneka if Mrs. Gandhi had decided to pass on the mantle to her. The older men used to more civilized ways of being ordered about than Maneka’s would have been unhappy just as they were unhappy with Sanjay, though they too would have found discretion the better part of valour. In Rajiv’s case, they have been ready to extend a welcome because of his gentler ways.
Use Of AIR, TV
But this is only the first step on the road to eventual “succession.” The Congress no longer enjoys such a position in the country that its leader is assured of popular acceptance. Indeed, as in Mrs. Gandhi’s own case, its own survival may come to depend on Rajiv’s popularity. So he has to acquire a popular appeal. But how?
All India Radio and Doordarshan can obviously help. But only up to a point. As it is, they lack credibility because a lot of people are convinced that they have become wholly instruments of not just the government’s and the ruling party’s propaganda but of Mrs. Gandhi’s and lately of Rajiv’s personal propaganda. This feeling could grow and hurt Rajiv, especially if unjustifiably loud and extensive publicity day after day is accompanied by the kind of sycophancy which earlier surrounded Sanjay. Imagine Rajiv being described as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi rolled into one as was done in a leaflet brought out on the occasion of the Congress plenary session in Calcutta. It could produce a feeling of nausea.
It is rash to generalise on what kind of leader the Indian people are looking for. But as far as one can judge, it would appear that they would want a leader who is at once decisive and a respector of norms, forms and institutions. As it happens, the intelligentsia is also looking for such a person to succeed Mrs. Gandhi. If this assessment regarding the popular expectations of the would-be leader is correct, it follows that Rajiv’s build-up should proceed along normal healthy lines. The TV camera must not focus too much on him; he should not take over official functions; and above all, he should keep the sycophants and flatterers as far away as possible which he was apparently doing earlier. One would in fact say he should banish them to the Andamans even if that involves abuse of authority. These are dangerous men. Their forbears (spiritual) have devoured emperors and empires in the past.
The Times of India, 11 January 1984