The unfolding tragedy that is the Congress Party

So the other night I was sitting up late, various random thoughts competing as usual for my attention such as which part of Chotta Rajan was actually chotta and how the great state of Bihar was slowly but surely ensuring every member of Laloo Prasad Yadav's family spent some time as either Chief or Dep. Chief Minister (3 down, 8 to go) 

As is often the case with this sort of late-night rumination, I felt emotions ranging from solid indifference to existential despair and everything in between. In the end, however, I mostly cast aside anything too strong in favour of a cold shower and warm bed. 

Not tonight, though. 

Tonight I appear to be reflecting and I realised that over the past year, I have been pissed off at a lot of things. The list includes the steady overcrowding on the morning commute, people who play their music too loud through their headphones, Donald Trump, every single Indian news anchor, and Justin Beiber. 

But, and this one took me somewhat by surprise, the one thing that has consistently infuriated me over the past twelve months is India’s Congress Party. 

Let’s set last year's election results to one side. Let’s even put it down to anti-incumbency and the electorate's appetite for a change. I’m no expert, but I know that’s normal in politics. The Congress was pretty much wiped out, but let’s not dwell on that fact either. They were up against a PR machine; a fiery and charismatic leader with an abnormally large chest measurement, and it turned out to be a no-contest. 

We could mull over the reasons for such a colossal defeat, but again I don’t think we would come up with anything that hasn’t been mentioned before. There was the hubris, the astounding lack of remorse for a spectacularly corrupt second term, an arrogance in the face of a resurgent Opposition, and a nauseating sense of entitlement - of having some sort of divine right to govern. The outcome was really no surprise. 

We can look closer at the campaign itself - and all the ironies along the way. We had a spokesperson of this so-called pro-poor party actually the use the word ‘chaiwala’ or 'tea-boy' as a derogatory term (a stunning demonstration of how to effectively alienate your base), an incumbent Prime Minister of supposedly impeccable honesty and integrity presiding over epic financial impropriety, a Grand Old Party that extolled the virtues of social democracy but was run by one woman as a personal fiefdom, and to top it all off we had some of their esteemed leaders label their main challenger ‘power-hungry’ and ‘dictatorial’. The pot called the kettle black so many times it was charged with inciting racial hatred. 

And what of their candidate itself? Ah, yes, Rahul Gandhi. Affectionately known as RaGa to some, and Pappu to others. Although never officially the candidate, he was also never officially NOT the candidate, which, given his lineage and last name, sort of made him the candidate. There was the car-crash televised interview (preserved on YouTube for posterity), the Jupiter-escape-velocity science lesson, and an assortment of other gems along the way. It was as if the Congress Party thought we were all idiots. 

The thing is, most people don’t think he should be leader of any organisation comprised entirely of adults. I suspect a large number of his party members feel the same. He himself doesn’t seem like the fizziest drink in the fridge, but I get the feeling even he feels this way. So who does believe he can be party leader and future Prime Minister? His mother? Is this really what one of the world’s oldest democratically run political parties has come to? Highly educated, intelligent men and women genuflecting before one woman who happened to be waitressing at the right restaurant at the right time? It’s bordering on the occult, and it’s gone on far too long. 

Even last week, after the latest round of Twitter trolling following an appearance at a college in Bangalore, Mr Gandhi is trying to put on a brave face. He is either cluelessly in denial, or unstable. Worryingly, he could well be both. Amidst all of the comedy that passed for his speech, however, there was a hint of an insight: "In 10 years, there was some fatigue with the Congress. There were some things we did wrong...and we lost the elections. We need to give a new face and image to the Congress." 

New face? New image? Last time I checked, it was the same face and the same image. Face + palm= facepalm. Rahul Gandhi is past the point where he has become a caricature of himself. He seems like a nice enough guy, but by persisting with him, the Congress is proving it is so far removed from reality, they might as well be trying to win elections on Mars in 2020. 

This is a new India. While there is affection and a benign sort of nostalgia for the role that the Congress Party played in India’s journey, there is also a fierce sense that we can and should do better than a political dynasty. Sonia Gandhi seemed to realise that fact when she placed Manmohan Singh at the helm in 2004, but that same nous appears to have deserted her now. 

And what of the party's behaviour since the debacle of 2014? If anyone thought it would be a chastening experience, an opportunity perhaps to be contrite, introspect and attempt to return with humility and renewed vigour, well, you were wrong. They have collectively, and almost without exception, acted like a petulant child whose rattle has been wrested from them. 

A quick roundup: 
Brazenly holding up parliamentary proceedings (quite a feat when you consider there might be more security guards than Congress MPs in the Lok Sabha at the moment), resorting to constant personal attacks rather than meaningful debate, flip-flopping on key legislation, and finding time in between to get obliterated in Delhi assembly elections as well. The fact that they were exulting at their part in the Bihar results where one of the most corrupt politicians of recent times returned to the corridors of power demonstrates how low this once-great party has fallen. To be shameless is one thing, but to seem unaware of shame as a metaphysical concept is something else entirely. 

The real tragedy of course is that it is not just the party’s fortunes that have taken a nose-dive. They may yet recover and at some point in our lifetimes, find a way back to relevance. But what of the present? In the meantime, they have essentially gifted absolute power to a man whose greatest fantasy is absolute power. They have emboldened lunatic cow-huggers and other riffraff operating at the outer fringes of sanity; people who have no business being anywhere near any democratic machinery because their mere presence will short-circuit it. At a time of increasing international instability, if India could not have a sensible party of government, the very least we needed is a mature Opposition. The Great Indian Congress Party has proved it cannot be either. 

And so, we plod on. Swachh Bharat, it now appears, was merely a clever PR buzzword for some old-school ethnic cleansing, a refinement of earlier experiments but this time on a national scale. Make in India only works for you if you were originally Made in India. It is a sorry and increasingly scary state of affairs. 

There was once a dream that was India. Today, the reality seems like a bad dream. Of course, India will survive. To suggest otherwise is to ascribe too much power to one man. He may alter the narrative slightly but will not fundamentally change it. No one person can. Nevertheless, it is infuriating that we find ourselves in this situation. And the fact that the Congress party, with all the tools at its disposal, pretty much allowed it to happen; well, that makes it just that much worse. 

Party's over, folks. Nothing more to see here.

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 #Day4

This week our election coverage continues with not one but two posts (I hope you are suitably impressed). If you are new here, and would like to start from the beginning (or begin from the start) please click here and read from the bottom up and you will soon be fully up-to-date. 

Firstly, it gives me great pleasure to welcome Ad Absurdum's first guest columnist in its eight-year history. Sujaya Jacob is currently pursuing an undergraduate degree in politics and international relations. In her first piece for us, she gives her take on what has been (and continues to be) arguably the most widely-discussed tv event in the history of Indian politics- Rahul Gandhi's interview with Arnab Goswami. At last count, it has had over 2 million views on YouTube, and with the general elections just over three months away, it is entirely possible it will have considerable implications for both the Congress party and the country as a whole. 

Aside from politics and foreign policy, Sujaya's wide-ranging interests include writing, fashion, travel, and George Clooney; not necessarily in that order.

Dear Rahul, step away from the Goswamis.

I must admit I heard the jokes and read the memes much before I actually watched the now infamous Rahul Gandhi -Arnab Goswami Times Now interview.(If you have been living under a rock, or are just fortunate enough to be born politically apathetic, you can find this piece of comic relief in its entirety below.)



A number of things struck me about the interview; firstly how intensely and passionately my disdain for Arnab Goswami had grown since the last time I was revelling in his journalistic buffoonery (the Narendra Modi interview? or was it Salman Khan?). How he had somehow become the poster boy for mainstream Indian political journalism and discourse -when did this happen? How did we let it happen? When will it stop? (The nation should want to know!). But that is best left for another time. 

Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, was how incredibly unprepared the young Gandhi was for what was touted to be his tv interview debut; his first sit -down interview in over ten years. I watched as he incorporated women’s empowerment and inclusive economic growth into every question he was asked; a little bit like an aspiring beauty pageant queen and her over-eagerness for world peace. I listened as he tried and failed repeatedly to dodge Goswami’s unrelenting attempts to pit ‘The Gandhi’ against ‘The Modi’ (but Rahul, please answer the question I am asking). I winced as he fumbled awkwardly through what he considered to be the achievements of the UPA’s ten-year tenure in power. I watched as his eyes darted around the room, looking perhaps for a friendly face and a knowing smile (rumour has it big sister Priyanka Gandhi was in the room for the duration of the interview). I sighed as key terms (RTI, anyone?) regularly interjected poorly-structured arguments. And I watched as he referred to himself in the third-person before switching to the first-person with all the grammatical prowess of a shy 5th grader. 

Occasionally, from the darkness of an extremely well lit room, Rahul Gandhi was allowed enough air- time to talk about what it meant to sit through the funerals of his assassinated grandmother and father respectively; what it means to have lived his life with the inescapable looming landscape of Indian political history at his back. However, there is little or no room for sentimentality in newsroom studios crowded with a crew clamouring for instant headlines and showy one-liners. So, while Mr Gandhi’s readiness for political leadership may be debatable, one thing is for sure- he is not prepared for the onslaught of Goswami and his ilk. 

Dear Rahul, step away from the Goswamis.

India Election Watch #Day 3

Amid the growing speculation over the past few days that RG will be declared the PM candidate for the Congress, the AAP is discovering the truth in the old adage- a week in politics is like an eternity. If this is true for politics in general, it is even truer for politics in India. Add the fact that the general election is in a few months time, and you have on your hands a political drama that is nearly as compelling as a good Mohanlal movie. 

For one thing, the Congress did not name RG as their PM candidate at their conclave yesterday. Shock, horror. (Genuine shock, horror. Not sarcastic) He will, instead, be in charge of their campaign. His new role began almost immediately as he delivered a 40 minute speech in both Hindi and English with a passion that bordered on inspirational. Question is, is it too little, too late? 

Meanwhile, the sitting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sat on the stage (Yes that is the end of that sentence because that is all there is to say about it). At various points in the speech, when RG mentioned him specifically by name, he barely turned his head. When the crowd cheered and clapped, he barely twitched his arm. He seems like a man who, having played the part of puppet for so long, is now method acting. The actor is indistinguishable from the character; the man has become his own caricature. It is sad that for a man of his stature, it has finally come to this. Assuming of course, it is actually him. I wouldn't be surprised if they had just placed an inflatable doll on the stage. Come to think of it, a doll with just a few head movements and a serene gaze wouldn't be too hard to conjure up for a party that has been, in some form or another, responsible for far more impressive feats. (And for our next trick, we will make 300 crores of public money disappear *whoosh*) 

In other news in this past week, two of the more articulate ministers in the Congress party chimed in with their own assessments of the AAP. First up was Jairam Ramesh who must have been addressing a group of children at some kind of amusement park. That is the only context in which his statements would make sense. Judge for yourselves: "Don't make fun of them. Making fun of them would be proved wrong" His comments then took on a more philosophical/mythological bent (the children must have been confused) "AAP is like Dashavatar. In different states it can have different avatars." 

This is all very interesting but exactly who is making fun of AAP? Is this what is now passing for serious political discourse in this county? 

Next up was Mani Shankar Aiyar, a man who whose words are a bit like Dennis Bergkamp's goals- when they come, you can expect them to be outrageous. (Editor's note: Apologies to readers who don't follow football, but this blog is committed to supporting sports besides cricket.) 

Here are some of the gems from his opinion piece that appeared in a leading news site: 

"Apart from helping Kejriwal decide whether to brush his teeth with Colgate or Pepsodent, there is precious little that mohalla sabhas (in reference to a model of grass-roots governance currently being championed by AK) will achieve until the constitutional and legal structures are in place."

"...So, even if the AAP's head is in the wrong place, their hearts are in the right place. Not bad for a beginning. They can be taught. They can learn..." 

The combination of condescension and arrogance is both sad and amusing at the same time. By making politics sound like something only an exalted few are able to comprehend and carry out, he is exhibiting precisely the same kind of hubris that plagues the rest of the party. With all due respect, Mr Aiyar, where was all this verbal artistry when one scam after another rocked the country? When anger spilled out onto the streets in the wake of the gang rape in Delhi just over a year ago? 

It is entirely predictable that members of the Congress, having been swept out of power in Delhi, are now taking great pleasure in punching holes in AAP's methods, but people like Mr Aiyar need to remember that for the last decade, and indeeed many years before that, his party had the solemn privilege of governing this great country. They would do well to ask themselves if it is truly- economically, socially and politically- in a better state now than it was then. Everything else is just rhetoric. Leaving aside the percentages and the victory margins and everything else for a moment, how will history judge the current administration? 

Update: Dennis Bergkamp scores again- I mean Mani Shankar Aiyar speaks again: At yesterday's Congress meeting, he was quoted as saying the following in reference to NM (Roughly translated from Hindi) "There is no way he can be Prime Minister in the 21st century... but if he wants to come and distribute tea here we can make some room for him."  

Less said the better.

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.

India Election Watch #Day 1

Yesterday, for the first time this year, we saw Priyanka Gandhi emerging out of hibernation to attend a "Congress party strategy meeting". It is an altogether predictable move, and follows a familiar script. In the late 90's, when Sonia Gandhi first emerged onto the scene as a politician in her own right, she appeared to rescue the party from the brink of oblivion. The real stroke of genius was that her decision was made to look like it had been made out of a dutiful widow's sense of duty rather than choice. 

In the run-up to the 2004 elections, both Rahul and Priyanka took turns to hit the campaign trail. As speculation mounted as to which of the two would enter full-time politics, Rahul, again the apparently reluctant Gandhi heir, eventually stood and won from Amethi. Ten years later, he has inevitably become the face of the Congress party, and Priyanka has largely stayed away from the spotlight. The thinking seems to be- reduce the overexposure and thereby increase the impact closer to the election. It also re-inforces the spin that for Priyanka, like for the rest of the family before her, politics is not a career, but a service to the nation she feels morally obliged to provide. 

In 2004 and 2009, this approach may have helped increase the margin of victory in Amethi and Rae Bareli, but was inconsequential in the rest of the country. This time, I suspect it will be inconsequential, period. From a PR perspective, my own feeling is that this is a mistake and shows how completely out of step with public opinion the Congress is. 

Two things that have become synonymous with the party in recent times are dynastic politics and corruption. Priyanka Vadra, albeit through no fault of her own, currently embodies both. Yes, she is both charismatic and articulate (and bearing a striking resemblance to Indira Gandhi can help. sometimes.) But the party's near-complete silence in the wake of allegations surrounding her own husband Robert Vadra's business dealings is a serious failing. 

Corruption is without doubt going to be front and centre of this year's election battle, and by pretending it is not an issue, the Congress is hammering the first nail in its own electoral coffin.