|
By Amulya Ganguli
Contrary to what recent events may suggest, the cloying sycophancy
associated with the Congress is a relatively new phenomenon in the
organisation.
Its roots lie in Indira Gandhi's emergency rule of 1975-77, a mere 30
years ago in a 123-year-old party. Like the display of servile
obsequiousness, the Emergency itself was out of tune with the Congress'
liberal tradition.
Earlier, the party may have extolled outstanding leaders but it was
generally on guard against excessive adulation. Jawaharlal Nehru, for
instance, had even warned against the danger of Caesarism with himself
in mind.
In an article written anonymously in the Modern Review in 1937, he said:
"Caesarism is always at the door and is it not possible that Jawaharlal
himself might fancy himself as a Caesar?"
Ironically, it was his daughter who fancied herself as a Czarina,
curtailing civil rights during the Emergency and accepting without demur
the fulsome praise of then party president Dev Kanta Borooah that "Indira
is India".
Even if the Congress hasn't scaled such ridiculous heights of sycophancy
since then, it has become customary for party men to project the
Nehru-Gandhi dynasty as not only exceptional but to virtually proclaim
that only its members were fit to rule India and that others in such
positions were there by sufferance, as it were.
The latest such outbursts of sycophancy were by senior Congressmen like
Arjun Singh and Pranab Mukherjee, both of whom spoke in favourable terms
about the possibility of 37-year-old Rahul Gandhi becoming the next
prime minister.
Before them, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.Karunanidhi and some
Nationalist Congress Party leaders had spoken in the same vein.
It was just as well, therefore, that before such idolization got out of
hand, party spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan stepped in, evidently with
the approval of the first family, to warn against "an environment of
sycophancy". Not only that, she went on to praise the present prime
minister, Manmohan Singh, and his team for their "magnificent record of
achievements".
Considering that this was probably the first time that the word,
sycophancy, with its unflattering connotation was used by the party
leadership against the unabashed flatterers, it was obvious that the
leaders were serious and not merely pretending to be outraged.
The kudos for the prime minister were also significant. It is known, for
instance, that a major purpose of the sycophants in suggesting the name
of a member of the dynasty for the prime minister's post was to
downgrade the present occupant. Not surprisingly, the Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) seized upon this inner-party games in the Congress to urge
Manmohan Singh to "step down" since Rahul Gandhi's projection as the
prime ministerial candidate showed the Congress's lack of confidence in
the gentle Sikh.
While Arjun Singh has for long been known to have resented Manmohan
Singh's elevation to the top post, what was surprising was that the
perceptive Pranab Mukherjee should have added his voice to the demand.
If anything, it shows that even astute Congressmen try to play safe when
it involves the dynasty.
However, the latest stance of the high command - read Congress president
Sonia Gandhi - suggests a welcome departure from the unfortunate trend
that has been in force since Indira Gandhi's time. If it dilutes the
excessive preoccupation of the party men with the first family, then the
organization cannot but benefit. It is self-evident that promising young
people will not come to the fore in the party in increasing numbers
because of the suspicion that the top post will be forever beyond their
reach.
Historically, the Congress derived its strength from the presence of
powerful leaders not only at the national level but also in the states.
Even at the time of Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, Govind Ballav Pant and
others at the centre, there were highly influential state-level
politicians like B.C. Roy in West Bengal, Biju Patnaik in Orissa,
Srikrishna Sinha in Bihar, Kamlapati Tripathi in Uttar Pradesh, Pratap
Singh Kairon in Punjab, Y.B. Chavan in Maharashtra and so on.
It was in that period when even the towering personalities of the party
at the centre were no more than the first among equals that the Congress
was at the height of its power. If the warning against sycophancy makes
the party men realise that they will be harming their own prospects by
their eulogy for the first family, then there is some hope that they
will shed their irritating habit and enable the party to recover some of
its lost glory.
It may not have been the dislike of sycophancy alone that persuaded the
party leadership to voice its objections. As the reference to the
creditable performance of the Manmohan Singh government showed, the
leaders may have realised that it would be committing electoral suicide
by undermining the prime minister's position on the eve of the next
general election.
After all, Manmohan Singh is not only a highly respected economist but
is also regarded as a man of integrity. His initiative with regard to
the nuclear deal has made him a favourite of the middle classes while
the high growth rate is attributed to the economic reforms that began
when he was finance minister in 1991. To replace him with a young man
who is still engaged in "discovering" India is unlikely to boost the
Congress' electoral prospects.
The Congress may have also realised that some of the allies are rooting
for Rahul Gandhi so that such a ploy will lower the party's tally of
parliamentary seats, making it more vulnerable to the wishes of the
caste-based regional outfits. Hence, perhaps, the backtracking on Rahul
Gandhi and on sycophancy.
Click
here to send Gifts to India
|