The Congress’s flawed strategy

Congress strategy in the state has been not to insist on full-dress secularism but to ignore what was going on there.


Aakar Patel June 08, 2013
The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk

I’m delighted the Congress lost all six by-elections in Gujarat last week.

The six seats, two for the Lok Sabha and four for the state assembly, now with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), were all earlier held by the Congress. Chief Minister Narendra Modi succeeded in blanking out the Gandhis and their underlings, who were only days ago, crowing about how their win in Karnataka heralded some sort of Congress revival.

Had the Congress won the by-elections in Gujarat, this would have been chalked down to the family genius and a decline in Modi’s charisma. The failure of the party to stand for anything, the real reason for its decimation, would have been covered up again.

Under Sonia Gandhi, the Congress has slowly surrendered the entire secular space in Gujarat to whoever wants it. The Congress in Gujarat does not stand for the values it claims in the rest of the country.

This process began when Sonia Gandhi hired Shankarsinh Vaghela only months after she became Congress president. Vaghela, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh man, who had fought against other BJP leaders in Gujarat, was sulking with his party because it had not made him chief minister. He had not suddenly become secular when the Congress decided to make him its face in Gujarat.

Ever since then, and this was 15 years ago, the Congress strategy in the state has been not to insist on full-dress secularism but to ignore what was going on there and just bide time till power came automatically to it.

Everything it has done in Gujarat politically since has unfolded from this belief, capped by the remarkable manifesto that it put out late last year. The Congress did not even refer to the conviction of a minister in Modi’s cabinet for rioting and murder because it did not want attention to be drawn to the riots again. The thinking is that when such matters are referred to, the voter shows his angry Hindu side and then sides with the BJP.

The reason Sonia Gandhi accepts this is that she has been convinced by her political secretary Ahmed Patel, a Gujarati from Bharuch, that his state had become totally communal and there was no point in resisting the mindset of Gujaratis.

The results are before us. The Congress has not won a majority in Gujarat for 28 years (the last time was in 1985). Its tearing down of the Babri Masjid and two riots, one in 1992 and the other a decade later, gave the BJP the momentum that has kept it in power there longer than in any other state.

And this is unlikely to change in the total absence of the Congress from the field. What is present in Gujarat today is not the Congress of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. It is a party that, to be fair, is not anti-Muslim as the BJP is, but, depending on how one sees it, is either pragmatic or lacking in principle.

Sonia Gandhi thinks she is being pragmatic, but the fact is that too much pragmatism can produce a lack of principle and this has happened in Gujarat.

In any case, the giving up on secularism has proved, as the by-elections show once again, to be a failed strategy. Waiting for power to arrive at your doorstep on its own is stupid.

The Congress position in Gujarat is also an immoral and dishonest one because it is different from what the Congress serves up in the rest of the country.

At a time when the BJP is positioning Modi as leader of its campaign (though I don’t think he will be prime ministerial nominee), the Congress will need to counter him in Gujarat with something. Today, Modi is allowed to talk about other issues because the Congress does not challenge his record on communalism in Gujarat.

The brand of Congress in Gujarat, as an inclusive party that does not compromise with the vulgar anti-Muslim posture of the BJP, will need to be built once again.

It stands for nothing today.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 9th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (47)

jack | 11 years ago | Reply

@Dee Cee

"This time a two-nation theory led by my co-religionists. Dreamers of Akhand Bharat from Afghanistan to Bangladesh will end up fragmenting the existing Bharat as well."

First, Akhand Bharat. I don't know of any leader of any substance, of any political party in India talks about Akhand Bharat. In about 66 years I don't remember any minister or offical from GOI ever talked about Akhand Bharat. Even the likes of Togadias and Mohan Bhagbats will not think as far as Afghanistan. If you talk about a few nuts who peddle such infantile dream in sundry blogs, whose readership probably do not go beyond their friends and family members, I would understand. Otherwise you are just spicing up the story to further your argument. You are apprehensive of a two-nation theory led by your co-religionists. It implies you are not fond of the theory as such, I am not either. A vast majority of Indian populace (irrespective of their religious affiliation) see the country as one. It’s just that they don’t write sanctimonious op-eds, comment on blogs or, peddle secular homilies on live debates on television. They don’t preach secularism 24X7, but practice it in their daily life without being conscious about it. It’s so subtle that it might lend them an appearance of being unconcerned. While it’s important to be aware of the danger, to stay on guard and take corrective measures whenever there are aberrations; it’s also important to manage the tone and tenor of the sermon. One of the contributing factors in the rise of Hindu right and Muslim ghettoism is the kind of pseudo-secularism practiced by successive governments of the past and a horde of self-serving, self-righteous liberal intellectuals; for whom securing votes and scoring brownie points against their rivals took precedence over engaging with the people on the ground to know how it all are played out at the level of the masses. For long and for most us secularism has been a tool of convenience than a matter of belief.

Cynical | 11 years ago | Reply

@jssidhoo

@Razi "..better option would be to enhance the arguments of the moderates."

Words of wisdom.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ