The protagonist of the movie "The curious case of Benjamin Button" ages in reverse and dies as an infant. While I do not claim that Congress is no more, or that Congress has been aging in reverse all these years, a careful reader would not fail to see the parallel.
A Political party, if you compare with a tree, would root itself in a core set of tenets (you can't bracket even AAP as an exception. The primary force of their formation, "Chaos", became their initial core idea, and manifests itself through a number of actions of the party as well as its members, but that's not the focus here) and gradually develop the branches of action plans that depend on its life the nourishment that the root supplies. The more nourishing the root is (to itself, need not be to the society as a whole) and the healthier the actions plans, then mightier the tree will be.
INC, when founded in 1885, had a straight-forward objective of obtaining a greater share in governance for the educated Indians and to provide a platform for the educated Indians to talk to the British Raj. History tells us that this notion resonated very well with many important figures of that time and the tree grew quite tall. It did not take much time for this notion to grew into the idea of "Swaraj" (Tilak) and then "PoornaSwaraj"(Nehru) and the eventual Indian independence in 1947, followed by the Nehru governments.
While Gandhi and Patel could be considered objectively right in their perspective that Congress should disband after Independence, a pragmatic concession can be given to Nehru's point of view that it needs to continue its mission for India. But, when the huge tree broke into two in 1969, leaving a rather small old trunc (Kamaraj/Desai Old Congress) and a bigger new trunc (Indira Congress), what happened to the mission? Do both the truncs inherit the same mission? Or do both of them lost it and define their own mission? In any case, it is irrelevant to examine the mission of the Kamaraj Congress, as the party itself dissolved into oblivion. The relevant question is - what is that core idea that holds the Indira Congress together?
The name says itself - INDIRA. It was Indira's party. Indira formed it under her terms, nourished under her watch and brought it up with the ideologies that she stood for: Sarvodaya (Socially) and Socialistic (Economically).
It is not a wonder that neither Rao, nor Manmohan Singh finds any warm-heartedness from the party. They are the iconoclasts in their party. They are not socialists or centre-left. Their focus is not explicit "Sarvodaya". They do not follow Indira.
It is not a wonder that many promising leaders had to keep quite or leave the party to make way for one of the "Indira" leaders. V.P.Singh to Shard Pawar to Mamata Banerjee.
It is not a wonder that even after the disastrous 2014 election results, the partymen still can't look beyond the Gandhi family. Because, that's the root. They don't have anywhere else to look to.
It is a tragic picture indeed. While the non-Congress party members would be happy about the fate befallen on Congress, that is a myopic view of the situation. It is a picture equally tragic to the nation itself.
Just like Benjamin Button, Indira Congress was born with a lot of maladies. Then it walked on crutches, then it lived life in full. Having played the most significant role in turning the fate of this nation in the last couple of decades, it has gone back to its origin. After fully playing out its life, it has gone back to being an infant in Indira's lap. Devoid of youth. Incapable of expressing itself. Unwise to separate right from wrong. Dependent on the mother for nourishment.
Unlike Fitzgerald story, the Congress story does not end with this. It could die. Or, the infant could grow back again into youth. But, what could be the core tenets of that future political party, if it grows again like a normal kid? Surely, there are not many options open. Redefining itself as a pan-India Leftist Progressive party is the most open door right now (read this to know why). And that is tragic in itself. And ironical for a party that ushered-in economic liberalism. And paradigm-shift for a party whose largest voter base were always social conservatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment