Leader or the ideology: What should Congress party members abandon?

The Gandhi family is to the Congress what the RSS was to the BJP. But the latter has now reduced its dependence on the RSS to almost zero

In 1967, in my first year at Hindu College in Delhi University, a senior who used to do those "youth" programmes for All India Radio took me along to be interviewed by the external services division. I said India was a rotten country, or words to that effect.

The lady who was interviewing me stopped the recording. Then, in a very kind voice, she said something I have never forgotten. "Son, there's a time and place for everything, even speaking the truth". What I gained in wisdom that day, I lost in money. I wasn't paid the Rs 15 as promised. In 1967 that was an absolute fortune. 

I recall this incident here because of Rahul Gandhi. He has been saying the oddest things about India during his trip to the UK.

Democracy in India is dying. China is justified in its actions. Mikes are silenced in our parliament. Europe and America aren't taking note. You know, all that sort of thing.

How one wishes someone would say to him, "Son, there's a time and place for everything, even speaking the truth". In 1978 when the BBC interviewer invited Indira Gandhi to criticise the government, she refused, saying not while I am abroad, sorry.

But I don't think the problem is that he said all this abroad. It is that he said these things to people who don't care. What was the point of saying all this to an audience that doesn't vote in India? He was, in effect, whistling in the wind.

Even the style and method that Rahul affects, of talking to oneself or seeming to, wouldn't matter if he didn't represent a political party with a highly desirable worldview. But Rahul did his party and its members a great disservice by embarrassing both, as he does all the time.

Immediate things aside, this brings up a very old problem in electoral democracies. Who does the voter vote for, leader or party, or both?

There are four possibilities. Leader, but not the party. Party, but not the leader. Both party and leader. Neither party nor leader. You can check this for yourself.

Where would Rahul fit in this? In 2019 he lost in Amethi, which was a family pocket borough, for 39 years. So it was neither party nor leader. But he won in Wayanad, so it was both party and leader.

In other constituencies in 2019, the party managed to win only 54 seats. So there, too, it was neither party nor leader.

But in the assembly elections in some states, it's been both party and leader — except that it wasn't Rahul who was the leader. It was a local person without a national profile. Rahul, meanwhile, has a national profile but practically zero national following.

So, it boils down to a straightforward question: should the Congress abandon its leader or its political philosophy or both? It's a fact that a lot many more people would vote for the Congress if Rahul stepped aside. That's the second case above: party, not the leader.

I have long argued that what the Gandhi family is to the Congress what the RSS was — please note, was — to the BJP. But the latter has now reduced its dependence on the RSS to almost zero. It has its own army of workers who help out during the elections.

The Congress could do the same thing with the Gandhi family. But, as we have been seeing, it won't. Members of the Congress party are willing to dump the ideology, but the leader when it's clear that the attractiveness lies with the ideology and not the leader.

That's a pity because the Congress does represent a good political ideal.