MY WORD! Rahul has to draw bigger picture

IN HIS SPEECH AS CONGRESS NO. 2, WHICH HAS BEEN WIDELY ANALYSED, RAHUL GANDHI WENT FROM BEING A LEADER STUCK IN A RURAL RUT TO SOMEONE WHO COULD BE THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA. YOUNG, EMOTIVE, AWARE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS PAST AND HOPEFUL OF THE FUTUR

An ability to communicate is useless unless there is some substance. In his speech in Jaipur, Rahul Gandhi at last seemed to have got both content and delivery right.

Everyone says Rahul Gandhi must have changed his speech- writer. After all, the young Gandhi has been following in the footstep of his mother in every conceivable way: first by being the Reluctant Inheritor. And second, by making turgid speeches.

In fact, making ( actually reading) boring speeches in the most boring way, seems to be a UPA specialty. Sonia Gandhi has never been known to make even the shortest speech without having it written for her. Neither has Dr Manmohan Singh. ( Remember his speech about the Delhi gang- rape heroine? Not only did it come a week too late, a speech which should have carried strong emotions, strongly expressed, sounded like the Reserve Bank Governor talking about rate cuts).

But at his formal anointment as Sonia Gandhi’s official successor to the Congress party’s top job, Rahul actually gave a speech that went beyond a leader stuck in a rural rut ( and who had spent the previous night in a farmer’s hut), to one given by someone who could well be the future Prime Minister of India.

He also spoke like a young leader, addressing the young constituency that is his to rule if he shows the will. A small aside here. The parliamentary opposition, particularly the BJP and the CPM, are full of good speakers. But does that mean anything? The Marxists speak brilliantly about a dead idealogy; the BJP has Sushma Swaraj whose fire is jingoistic, Arun Jaitley whose speech suggests too smooth a lawyer and L. K. Advani whose mustache bristles about a glorious past. In short, an ability to communicate is useless unless there is some substance in the content. In his speech in Jaipur, Rahul Gandhi at last seemed to have got both content and delivery right.

Except, did he really say that? Did he say that his immediate objective was to develop leadership skills in Congressmen to such an extent that each state would have a potential 4 to 5 Chief Ministers? Is that an objective? Or a recipe for disaster? The bane of politics in our states is not an absence of Chief Ministerial candidates, but too many of them. Why, Maharashtra has always had at any given time, three to four men whose eyes were firmly fixed on the Mantralaya gaddi. And Rahul Gandhi wants more of them?

You would think that the need of the hour, and certainly the need of the Congress in 2014, is to have an undisputed Chief Minister or CM candidate in each state, whether Congress ruled or not. This chosen person, with the full and unequivocal backing of the High Command would then set about the task of strengthening the party structure in his state, without having to fight internecine battles to guard his own turf. He would have a one- point agenda: to ensure his party did well, or better than well, in the next general elections. Surely a Commander needs more foot soldiers than generals!

That disquieting statement about CMs shows that perhaps Rahul Gandhi is still muddled about his role on the national scene. Ever since he joined politics, he has devoted his time and energy in trying to build Congress’ infrastructure. This was commendable to start with, but at some point Gandhi had to take on the mantle of leadership. Now that he has done so, he should show that he is boss, not someone who is still fumbling with the architecture.