Rahul’s Mona Lisa Smile

Is Rahul Gandhi secretly relieved he didn't get picked for a job he didn't want in the first place? 

                                                                                          ©Getty Images 

Blackbird singing in the dead of night,
Take these sunken eyes and learn to see,
All your life, you were only waiting for this moment to be free... 
               - The Beatles, Blackbird (1968) 

Psychologists and behavioural analysts are likely to find Rahul Gandhi a singularly compelling subject. Many have already attempted to deconstruct the person behind the persona; commenting on his inability to make eye-contact, possible attention deficit disorder, and a generally nervous, stand-offish disposition. 

I am not an expert and therefore don't have a professional opinion. However, going purely by what I've seen on TV (obviously not the best way to judge anyone), coupled with my wife’s empathetic insight, it's hard not to feel that if there's one thing that characterises Rahul Gandhi, it is that he seems trapped. Not just trapped in the sense of being a child trapped in a man's body; but trapped within his own circumstances, a situation he was born into and is ultimately unable to escape from (with or without Jupiter's escape velocity). 

It is impossible for any of us to imagine being Rahul, or any Gandhi for that matter. 'Normal' might be a relative term, but with the sort of relatives Rahul has, there's probably been no such thing for him. Much newsprint is devoted to the aspects of entitlement and privilege, but there is another side to being part of the 'dynasty' that we often ignore. For all its supposed benefits, is it the sort of life any of us would choose for ourselves? Does all the security in the world make you feel safe when your grandmother was gunned down by her own guards? 

History attests to the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru was as canny as they come; Indira Gandhi was his natural political heir. But Rajiv (the diffident, stand-offish one) was neither suited nor primed for politics. The mind wanders now into hypothetical territory- how different would Rahul's life had been if his uncle Sanjay had not been killed in a flying accident in 1980 and his father had never been subsequently coerced into entering the fray? 

Rajiv Gandhi was parachuted in to rescue a party teetering on the brink; within four years he was Prime Minister. Rahul Gandhi has been a Member of Parliament for ten years; after the 2009 elections he steadfastly rejected calls to be part of the cabinet of the UPA government, choosing to stick with his self-appointed role of mobilising the Youth Congress. It may have been the only political decision he made of his own volition. 

Five years later, in 2014, he found himself as the 'unofficial' Prime Ministerial candidate, despite never having actually said so himself. Whether or not he truly wanted the job we may never know; but to his credit, he at least seemed to want to provide a half-decent CV for consideration. 

Somewhere along the way, you feel as though Rahul Gandhi felt compelled to take his rightful place in the tangled web that was his life, like Simba taking up Mufasa's mantle in the Lion King because this is the only purpose for Simba’s existence. (It’s a somewhat facetious analogy, but it does the job, I think). He doesn’t really believe the future of the pride land hinges on him, but anyone who means anything to him does. The question is, is there a really a choice? Is he duty-bound to fulfil both his own destiny and the destiny of those around him or could he walk away and risk seeing everything fall apart? Can someone who has already seen so much fall apart legitimately make that choice? 

I would like to think that at some point, even if only in a remote corner of his mind, Rahul realised that victory in this election was simply impossible. I would also like to think that he understood that his presence at the front and centre of the campaign was doing more than harm than good to the party. I would like to think, I really would, that he tried to tell his partymen this, but they didn't believe him; the fools. And even now, I would like to think that he is really just a sad, slightly damaged man-child, chasing a normalcy that we take for granted but he has never known himself. 

The Gandhi brand is to the Congress party what Hindutva is to the BJP; each is both a calling-card and a crutch. Neither party has had a vision (at least until now) that truly extends beyond these core identities. As a result, many found it strange when Rahul himself seemed to undermine the dynasty; questioning its relevance and underplaying its significance. It was roundly dismissed as empty rhetoric. 

But a niggling doubt, long suppressed, now bubbles up to the surface- was he on to something? Was this his way of saying that he was in fact the wrong guy, that we were making a mistake? At several points in what we now know was an utterly ill-fated campaign, he seemed to take a sledgehammer not just to himself, but to the office of the Prime Minister and the party as a whole. We decided he was either a charlatan or a moron. We jeered at the cheesy sloganeering, derided the prime-time interview debacle. 

And yet, and yet, the mind still wonders...could it be? This might have been the only way to prove what he knew all along: the days of The Family were long gone. A new India needed a new vision, a new direction, and he was not the one to provide it. The Congress party needed to reform itself to stay relevant; the crutch had to go for it to grow stronger in the long run. Perhaps a Congress minus the Gandhis might even eventually result in a BJP minus the Hindutva because, in a sense, the latter exists as a counter to the former. 

Fast-forward to the 16th of May when he appears in front of the clamouring press to cap off what has been the party's worst-ever election performance; and another thought crosses your mind, just for the briefest moment. While the vast majority appeared to celebrate India’s freedom from the Gandhi family, was Rahul celebrating a freedom (however small) of his own? You look for signs in the rueful smile; you wonder whether even in the face of staggering defeat, he realises there could have been one thing that was even worse- he could have won. 

But no, this is crazy talk. It involves attributing qualities like intelligence and political nous to someone who possesses these in very limited quantities, if at all. This is simply your mind playing tricks on you, lost as it is in a hazy, post-election fog. It is an attempt to justify, defend, and rationalise the past. And so you switch instead to the future- to what lies ahead. 

In the UK, when a leader of a political party fails to secure an election victory, it is more or less a given he or she will not lead the party again. This means if you are unsuccessful in your first attempt to become Prime Minister, you don't have a second attempt. It is done. 

We are talking about India, however; the land of seemingly endless re-incarnation and re-invention, where some things are always changing and other things stay the same. We are also talking about a Gandhi, and a grand old party that’s on its knees. 

When all the Modi-fication is over and done with, what becomes of Rahul and the Congress? Will lessons be learned, or will we be saying the same things about a different Gandhi five years from now? We can only wait and see.

India Election Watch #Day 2

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.  
- Douglas Adams 

Editor's note: While I am normally of the view that reducing people's names to their initials is both rude and lazy, I fear that over the next few weeks and months there's a good chance I will wear out the letters on my keyboard that spell the names Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal. I did consider using either just their first or last names but decided that Mr Gandhi, Mr Modi, etc., sounds too formal and Narendra, Arvind, etc., makes me sound like I went to school with them. They will, therefore, be known from here on as RG, NM and AK respectively. Thanks.

What is interesting about these upcoming elections is how much it has become about personalities. There have been elections in India that have been run and won on the back of either personality (or, in most cases, a Gandhi name) but I don’t think there's ever been a straight fight between three individuals like we have with AK, RG and NM. 

In the British general elections in 2010, there was a similar three-way contest between David Cameron (Conservatives), Gordon Brown (Labour) and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats). Most of the media coverage was centred on these three individuals, and sections of the British public bemoaned the fact that personality was driving public opinion more than ideology. With the introduction of American-style TV debates, there was even more of a worry that the campaign would turn into a spectacle of style over substance. As it turned out, Nick Clegg, who was unanimously declared winner of the debates, finished third in the polls. This seemed to prove that a sharp suit and good diction may give you a slight lift in the opinion polls, but by no means guarantees victory, something that no doubt came as a relief to many.

There is nothing inherently wrong with building a campaign around an individual. Corporate organisations, sports teams and even mass movements can thrive under a good leader, someone to rally the troops. The danger in doing this in politics, in my view, is that your brand can become indistinguishable from the individual, and individuals tend to disappoint other individuals a lot quicker than policies can. As a result, the brand's credibility can often be seriously undermined by one person's misdemeanours. There are several examples of this in Indian politics, and yet time and time again political parties make the same mistake.

Also, and I think this is even more significant in a non-presidential type of government such as India’s, this does not factor in the importance of a good team. It sounds obvious, but a Prime Minister or Leader of Opposition is only as good as his or her team of ministers. It seems to me that by placing the focus on the team rather than pinning your hopes on an individual, you're more likely to succeed. A cricketing analogy might be stretching the point a little, but- if you have a Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly in a team, it's almost irrelevant who the captain is. 

I think the Congress was likely thinking along these lines by steadfastly refusing to name a PM candidate in 2004. This ensured all options remained on the table and they were also able to maintain a semblance of inner-party democracy. In 2009, they persevered with the incumbent Manmohan Singh, but in 2014 the equation has changed. With the BJP announcing NM early on as their nominee, the Congress has increasingly been feeling the pressure to do the same. Personally, I think it would be great if they stuck to their policy of not ‘anointing’ anyone, but I think they will and I think it will be RG. 

Perhaps the reason they haven’t done so already is because they know the Gandhi name is no longer an advantage; in fact, in the current climate it may well end up having a negative effect. At the same time, if they name someone other than RG, people will think of that person as a puppet in the Manmohan Singh mould. So it’s essentially damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Which proves my point (sort of) about the importance of a strong team of leaders at the core, something they don't appear to have. 

RG, despite having promised much when he first arrived on the scene, has not done enough in my opinion to be perceived as a legitimate force. I wrote in a previous post about two years ago that he appeared to be infusing new energy into a tired old party and galvanising the youth. For a while, you got the impression that he could make up for lack of political experience with a fresh approach and new ideas. Of late, however, apart from the occasional sound-bite, there has been deafening silence from him on several major issues. Most times he seems inscrutable, even aloof. Perhaps most significantly, he has surrendered the platform of the young leader promising radical change. That space is now almost entirely occupied by AK. 

And what a story AK is. Just yesterday, there were reports that he was not ruling out the possibility of contesting the Lok Sabha election. While even a few months ago, such ambition would have been mocked, the Delhi elections last year changed everything. The AAP will, in one way or another, play a significant part in the national elections. I am not sure yet whether AK himself is a power-hungry charlatan or the real deal, but the advantage he has is, either by accident or brilliant political strategy, he has burst on the national scene at the best possible time. 

In a previous post, I wrote that the AAP has three main things going for it: An incumbent government in shambles, a charismatic leader in Kejriwal, and the tag of underdog; the little guy taking the fight to the big boys. The combination of these factors means you cannot rule out anything. 

The fact that AK is the newest kid on the block also means that people are, for the most part, intrigued. While the scrutiny will be intense, particularly now that he's a first-time Chief Minister, there's a very slim chance people will become disillusioned with him before the general elections in a few months. Put simply, he doesn't have enough time to screw up. Indeed, people may be more likely to give him a little slack, a little patience, a little more time, given the enormity of the task at hand. All these are precious commodities in politics. Moreover, there is no real pressure on him or the AAP to win a certain number of seats. Even with the result in Delhi, there is a sense that it would unrealistic to expect that to repeat nationally. The politics of India is too complex for that. And yet, with the pressure off, AAP and AK can, in a manner of speaking, go out and have a swing with the long handle. Every seat is a bonus. This is a luxury neither the Congress nor the BJP has. 

So here we are- NM, RG and AK. Let the battle commence. Six months is a long time in politics, particularly Indian politics, and we may well see someone else take the job in June. For now though, the focus is squarely on these three men. While each candidate is appealing in their own way, you can't help but think that the three of them combined would make for one decent leader. Jai Hind.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Phenomenon

Even as 2013 slowly disappears into the mists of time, it's worth recalling one event that could yet be a pivotal moment in India's political history. On December 8th, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), contesting its first elections since being founded in November 2012, won 28 seats- 8 short of an outright majority. The ruling Congress party (still in power at the Centre) was wiped out, but ended up providing outside support for an AAP-led government. It was a stunning, entirely unforeseen result, but it may well be just the beginning. 

Sometimes a moment gives rise to an individual, and sometimes an individual creates a moment. In either case, the stars align and something special takes shape. Pope Francis came along at a time when the Catholic Church appeared to be at its lowest ebb, and his impact was instant. Similarly, the AAP and Arvind Kejriwal entered the scene just as the sad, final acts of arguably India’s most corrupt administration were playing out. 

The AAP has a number of things going for it- an incumbent government that is now almost fully consumed by its own incompetence and hubris, an enigmatic and charismatic leader, and the tag of underdog (who doesn't love an underdog?) These factors will never exist in unison again. Add to this mix the feeling, however fleeting, that the AAP represents a once-in-a-generation chance to rewrite India's history, and you have near-unstoppable momentum on your hands. 

The Aam Aadmi (literal translation: mango people, but also means ‘common man’; welcome to complex, multi-faceted India!) is a broad category of people that includes not just the nearly 70 per cent of the population that live outside of India’s cities, but also the world's largest middle class. I'm no expert on electoral processes, but I’m guessing if you're a political outfit that has even part of this demographic on your side, you'll win an election every time. 

Suddenly, there is not just a negative feeling of anti-incumbency, but a positive feeling of optimism. Significantly, it is an optimism tempered by reality. The party has gone to great lengths to emphasise both its lack of experience and resources in its bid to take on the two major national parties, the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It is the quintessential David vs Goliath scenario, except there are two Goliaths and so David appears twice as small. AAP’s genius lies in taking these apparent weaknesses and turning them into strengths, even virtues. And so, Arvind Kejriwal, a man who officially entered politics just over a year ago, is Chief Minister of a region at the very heart of India's power centre. Make no mistake, it is a journey of epic proportions, one that rivals Obama's journey to the White House. 

When you make your personal integrity and character an integral part of your politics, your survival is inextricably linked to your own actions. In a sense, this is Kejriwal's appeal. For a common man, he has displayed uncommon political nous. In between the grandstanding and soaring rhetoric, he has reset the political debate, changed both the music and the lyrics. That in itself is huge.

It is a sign of how far politics in India has fallen that a leader who presents himself as a public servant is seen as radical. Arvind Kejriwal has brought ideals and a fresh perspective to a political discourse that for too long has suffered from a poverty of both. He does not have all the answers, and there will no doubt be some mis-steps along the way. But the beauty of a vision for a better reality is that every once in a while it can be a self-fulfilling prophesy. The winds of change, usually no more than a soft evening breeze, are now blowing like a hurricane across the country, bringing with it an ineffable feeling of hope. 

Editor’s note: Over the next few weeks and months, this blog will attempt to chart the key developments in the run-up to the polls in April-May. Whatever the outcome, it's guaranteed to be an interesting ride. 
I hope you will join me.