HOW THE CONGRESS CAN REDISCOVER ITSELF

Acult of personality has taken over politics in recent times. Not only in India, but also the US, Russia, China, Turkey, Japan and Brazil. This is a fallout of the deep penetration of 24x7 TV and social media, and the simultaneous decline of narratives rooted in political and social values. It is almost as if people everywhere have conferred on charismatic leaders some miraculous powers to usher in their version of achhe din. Miracle moves such as the (in)famous demonetisation of November 2016—played up by an obliging media as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s brahmastra (ultimate weapon) in the war against black money—often backfire. But in an atmosphere where fawning media, in a bizarre caricature of reality, had us think Modi might even win India the cricket World Cup, it is not hard to manufacture consent for misadventures masquerading as miracles.

In such a situation, it is only expected that some person, rather than processes, will be held responsible for the demoralising defeat of the Congress in the recent general election. The blinding spotlight is on Rahul Gandhi. Those urging the Congress to simply curl up and die or those holding Rahul solely accountable for the defeat choose to conveniently forget that only recently under Rahul’s leadership the Congress gave the BJP a run for its money in Gujarat and formed governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. Instead of resigning, Rahul might have focused on continuing to revitalise the Congress and address the real causes of defeat. But that course might not have forced the Congress leaders out of their business-as-usual mindset. Rahul Gandhi’s resignation, then, is a reminder to the political class that it must always be accountable to public opinion, and to Congress party satraps that there is a larger ideological battle to be fought.

The BJP has emerged as an unprecedented existential threat to the Congress. This has happened even though the BJP has hardly any real achievement to showcase in its first term. It didn’t even bother much with its election manifesto. The Congress, on its part, ran a vigorous campaign against the Modi government and put in considerable time, effort and energy in presenting its vision of governance. So what went wrong for the Congress and what worked for the BJP?

The answer lies in notions of ‘nationalism’. The BJP, with the help of its sympathisers in the media, successfully projected itself as a party dedicated to the dream of a proud, assertive India—and the Congress as indifferent, if not hostile, to this dream. The Congress presented a vision of governance, but failed to reclaim the democratic, nationalist space to which it holds historical and logical claims.

An emotional connect with the past and concern for the future play a crucial role in all societies. This patriotic sentiment can be articulated in a regressive, bigoted, hypernationalistic way or in a democratic, inclusive and forwardthinking nationalism. Academic debates on the various aspects of nationalism may go on, but in everyday politics, the power of national sentiment cannot be denied. The farsighted leaders of the Indian freedom movement, like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, knew this.

It was the Congress that first wove spontaneous patriotic feeling and anticolonial sentiment into an inclusive nationalism. The framework of nationalism articulated in freedom fighter and social reformer Dada Dharmadhikari’s formulation of ‘Manavnishtha Bhartiyata’ (humane Indian nationalism) aspired to represent all segments of Indian society, albeit with varying degrees of success. In fact, after Gandhi’s arrival on the scene, the Congress became like the wedding procession of Lord Shiva, carrying together very diverse, sometimes contradictory, characters. The

IT WAS THE CONGRESS THAT FIRST WOVE SPONTANEOUS PATRIOTIC FEELING AND ANTI-COLONIAL SENTIMENT INTO AN INCLUSIVE NATIONALISM

bridegroom—the Lord Shiva of this procession—was an inclusive idea of India. The very same inclusive nationalism was handspun into the Constitution of free India. The emergence and articulation of the nation’s discontents, the conflicting interests of various groups, was historically inevitable; the question was, and still is: how to address these contestations and democratic aspirations? How to expand the horizons of Indian nationalism? How to accommodate the new and assertive entrants in Shivji ki baraat?

Over the past decade, the Congress has tried to address this question, but in a counter-productive way. It has allowed its platform to be used by civil society activists pushing various singleissue agendas without weaving them into a coherent idea of Indian nationalism. In its eagerness to accommodate various cultural identity discourses, the Congress has ended up taking for granted its legitimate claim to a progressive Indian nationalism, thus leaving an opening for the RSS and BJP to infect the idea with their brand of right-wing majoritarianism.

In his resignation letter, Rahul Gandhi expresses a sort of detached disappointment with his colleagues, reminding them that in the battle against the RSS, “at times, I stood completely alone”. Now compare this statement with Modi’s grateful acknowledgement at the beginning of his first term, when he credited the first-ever full-majority BJP government at the Centre to the “tapasya (penance) of five generations” of RSS cadres. At the bauddhik, the RSS worker is indoctrinated with a sense of purpose, which, even though misplaced and morally ambivalent, is larger than his self.

Unlike the RSS and its political offshoot the BJP, the Congress has never been a cadre-based party. It chose to function more as a movement than a party during the anti-colonial struggle. Even after Independence, Nehru pointed out, in an interview with R.K. Karanjia (the then editor of the magazine Blitz) the “dangers” of turning a movement like the Congress into a cadre-based system; he spoke of “conflicts, counterconflicts and dissipation of the nation’s vitality” (The Mind of Mr Nehru, London, 1960, p.58).

However, Nehru’s Congress never lost sight of its ideological moorings in an inclusive, democratic, forwardlooking Indian nationalism. It continued to train its workers and educate the public at large about its idea of India, even without a formal system of cadre training reminiscent of the Communist parties. Nehru, with deep wisdom and far-sighted perspective, earned through the experience of working with Gandhi and other stalwarts of the freedom movement, effectively played the role of the ‘nation’s guru’, in the memorable words of the French thinker Andre Malraux. Notably, he contrasted both Hindu and Muslim communalism not with secularism but nationalism. Secularism was built into Nehru’s idea of Indian nationalism, and certainly did not imply being ignorant of, or indifferent to, various strains of Indian culture. Equally importantly, despite not being a cadre-based party, the ground-level political worker never felt ignored in the Congress until recent times.

This lesson from history underlines the dos and don’ts for the Congress today. It is, no doubt, important to avail of the services of professionals and technocrats, but it is infinitely more important to put all such services under the rubric of a political imagination. In other words, it is extremely important to give due weightage to the insights and perspectives of the regular political worker. Similarly, it is good to be sensitive to the aspirations of various social groups and identities, but it is better to take up the creative challenge of weaving these into the tapestry of a national vision and national interest. It can be done only if the ideological training of the worker and the political education of the public at large is taken seriously and pursued, come victory or defeat.

Let there be no confusion about the fact that we are in the midst of a culture war between sharply contesting ideas of India’s past, present and future. The Congress can take up this existential challenge only if it is prepared to embrace, refine and aggressively communicate an inclusive and progressive national vision.