G-23 – a headache or something lethal?

 

YOUTUBE

The G-23 episode, which started off as a harmless exercise in democratic protest within the confines of the Indian National Congress, is now unfolding as a drama with tragic hues. The storm in a teacup is developing into a devastating tornado that may blow away the INC from the Indian political landscape. Senior Congress leader PC Chako’s exit is a case in point.

The Group of 23 Congress leaders – the number may change off and on – is becoming increasingly assertive in its advocacy of reforms within the party. Something the High Command has been postponing, if not actually stonewalling. The demand for elections to the Congress Working Committee or CWC and the Central Election Committee or CEC are legitimate. However, the coterie is projecting it as a direct attack on Rahul Gandhi.  For years now, the CEC and CWC have become the nests for a bunch of “Yes Madams” who derive their worth – such as it is – through sycophancy. Consequently, the party has suffered grievously.

The rise of Indira Gandhi saw the neutering of several national and party institutions. The Congress has suffered the most. Indira Gandhi’s insecurities regarding powerful regional leaders or articulate faction heads discouraged grooming of a second line of party leadership. Internal democracy was replaced with an emasculating regime of backroom management that had free run of the party, and in many cases the government too. This unhealthy precedent morphed into a template for her successors. Intolerance of dissent reached manic proportions.

The party lost some of the best political talent to other groupings. Actually, the Congress Party has a long history of splits/partings and defections. Earlier, these had ideological reasons. Take the Surat split of 1907, when acrimony between moderates and hardliners ended in parting of ways. Moderates believed in the policy of settlement of minor issues with the government by deliberations. But the hardliners believed in agitation, strikes, and boycotts. The split between these two sections became visible at the end of Congress's Banaras Session (1905). Lokmanya Tilak and his followers held a separate conference and formed the Extremist Party. However they decided to work as a part of the INC. The difference between moderates and extremists widened in Congress' Calcutta Session of (1906) and attempts were made to elect one of them as the president. The moderates opposed the resolutions on Swaraj, Swadeshi, Boycott of foreign goods and National Education.

That split did not weaken the party, but refined its ideological edge. This became apparent under Mahatma Gandhi’s mentorship when the party resorted to peaceful struggle for independence and emerged triumphant.

Then in 1939, the All-India Forward Bloc under Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s leadership became a powerful faction within the party. Later on, it became an independent leftist party.  In 1951 J. Kripalani left the Congress Party to form Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party, which later on became Praja Socialist Party. These two splinter groups were as much the products of ideological differences as of inner-party turf battles.

The Swatantra Party was founded by C. Rajagopalachari and had several political titans of those times like T. Prakasam, Minoo Masani, NG Ranga, Darshan Singh Pheruman, KM Munshi etc. They were unhappy with Nehru’s leftist policies. The Swatantra Party advocated free market economy. It was a rightist party without the religious element.

From 1978 onwards, every split was the result of power struggle without any ideological content. Parties like Indian Nation Congress (R), Congress Party (Urs), Telangana Praja Samithi and Utkal Congress in 1969; Congress for Democracy in 1978, Indian National Congress (Indira) in 1978 – which was officially recognised as real INC in 1983; and many other splinter groups sought political power on their own. Most of them fell by the wayside. Each such parting weakened the Congress Party. The formation of Sharad Pawar’s NCP and Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress rendered crippling blows to the party’s national stature. T

he once mighty political entity has been reduced to a caricature of its former self. The High Command resembles increasingly Bahadur Shah Zafar during his final days in Delhi – with hardly any powers beyond the Red Fort; perhaps not even there. Similarly, in the INC, even courtiers have started rebelling against the high command.

The G-23 rebellion may well prove to be the last straw on the doddering camel’s back. What Rahul Gandhi is doing to revive the party is a mystery, is he serious about his role as a leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha? His spasmodic railings against the Modi-Shah duo are generally without any serious content. It’s like a blind man flailing his arms in the darkness hoping to hit something that will lead him to light.

A strong, well informed and articulate opposition party is vital to the health of any democracy. The role of opposition is not limited to questioning the ruling party’s policies or executive actions. It has to ensure that people’s interests are protected. It must hold the ruling party accountable for all its actions of omission and commission. Nothing of the sort is happening. The absence of any meaningful support to the farmers agitating against the three laws is the case in point.

In the parliament too, we hardly find any constructive criticism of the government actions and policies. Shouting is neither criticism nor constructive. The INC has failed to check the Modi government’s arbitrariness in almost every sphere of governance. The Congress high command seems to be unaware of the consequences of maintaining silence on trampling of liberty and rights of common people.

An opposition party is dutybound to be prepared for forming government. We are not aware of any shadow cabinet functioning in the Congress Party. Except for ill-formed postulations, mostly dictated by the high command, there is no attempt to inform itself of the opinion of common people. There is hardly any statement that would give evidence of the party having its finger on the people’s pulse. Moreover, we have yet to witness intraparty debates on national and international issues. Its supporters at the grassroots are a confused lot. They do not know where the party stands on various social and economic issues. Is it with the farmers? If so, why no active support from the party’s cadre? Has it discarded for good its secular moorings in favour of soft Hindutva? If no, why are the senior leaders mouthing Hindutva shibboleths and vying with the BJP in displaying their Hindu credentials? What is their current stand on the various issues facing our minorities?

Even the G-23 has failed to raise these issues in party or public forums. They are keen on ushering in democracy within the party, but they themselves have not made any coherent, well thought out vision statement that will give people the confidence in their intentions and capabilities. Successive elections since 2014 have reduced the party to a sick, doddering entity. Infighting and the apparently ineffective high command may well send the Grand Old party into death throes.

Many have predicted the party’s demise while others have actually recommended its voluntary pack-up. Well, one thing is certain, this party is incapable of nurturing leaders of calibre unless it reinvents itself as a truly vibrant and democratic party, while retaining its glorious liberal-secular traditions. Or else, we may have to look elsewhere for genuine leaders with a vision for a liberal and progressive India with a 21^st Century mindset. Only those leaders who have fire in their bellies can lead India towards its tryst with genuine destiny.