Its own greatest enemy
The Congress remains, at least in theory, the only national party. Were it to rid itself of control by a single family, it may once more begin to contribute constructively to the redemption of the idea of India, writes Ramachandra Guha.
One of the forgotten heroes of Indian democracy is Kumaraswamy Kamaraj. This withdrawn, monosyllabic, self-educated man from a backward caste background was instrumental in building a base for the Congress in south India. Later, as president of the national party, he helped mediate between different factions of the Congress. But perhaps his greatest service to his party and nation was to successfully oversee two major transitions. First, when Jawaharlal Nehru died in May 1964, he consulted the party’s MPs before arriving at the conclusion that Lal Bahadur Shastri would be the best choice as prime minister. Eighteen months later, Shastri died suddenly of a heart attack. Now Kamaraj again moved swiftly to contain the damage, by helping choose Indira Gandhi as Shastri’s replacement.
Growing up as an only child, with a sick mother and a father frequently abroad or in jail, Indira Gandhi did not allow herself to easily trust anybody. Least of all, the Congress Old Guard. Thus, the very men who had helped make her prime minister were the men she broke away from, soon after assuming the top job in Indian politics. In 1969, Indira Gandhi divided the Congress. The faction that stayed with her was soon recognized as the real Congress, especially after it won an authoritative victory in the general elections of 1971, riding to power on the backs of the slogan of “Garibi Hatao”.
To retain control over party and government, Indira Gandhi adopted four different strategies. First, she built a core of loyal advisers outside the Congress. She increasingly took her counsel not from her fellow cabinet ministers but from civil servants and technocrats in the prime minister’s office, which was headed by her fellow Allahabadi, P.N. Haksar. Second, she disbanded the old, decentralized structure of the Congress - where district and state units had substantial autonomy - and placed individuals who were personally loyal to her at the head of Pradesh Congress committees. Third, at Haksar’s inspiration, she floated the idea of the ‘committed’ civil servant and the ‘committed’ judge, so that key positions in the bureaucracy and the judiciary were also now occupied by individuals known to be loyal and subservient to the prime minister. Fourth, at election time she appealed directly to the voters, asking them to place their trust in her as an individual rather than in her party or its programme.
It is only in the last three decades that the Congress has worked instead to degrade rather than deepen democracy.
• With a past to honour
The dangers of Indira Gandhi’s brand of politics had been anticipated by the chief draughtsman of the Indian Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar. In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar warned his compatriots against an unthinking submission to charismatic authority. He quoted John Stuart Mill, who had cautioned citizens not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions”. This warning was even more pertinent here than in England, for, as Ambedkar observed, “in India, Bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be the road to the salvation of a soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”
From the time she split the Congress in 1969, Indira Gandhi worked systematically to dismantle the institutions and procedures of constitutional democracy. This she did by privileging loyalty over competence - in her party, in her council of ministers, in the legislative and judicial branches of government. Ministers, Congressmen, bureaucrats, judges, and in time even ordinary citizens - all were encouraged to lay their liberties at the feet of this Great Woman, the submission conveyed in the slogan, “Indira is India, India is Indira”.
It is important to note that this undermining of democratic institutions was well under way before the imposition of the Emergency in 1975. By suppressing freedom of expression and jailing Opposition politicians, the Emergency completed a process begun in the late 1960s. Shortly after its imposition, Indira Gandhi introduced a further departure from democratic functioning by naming her second son, Sanjay, her heir apparent. The locus of decision-making now shifted from the prime minister’s office to the prime minister’s house.
When Sanjay died in an air crash in 1980, Indira Gandhi immediately drafted her other son into the Congress. When she was herself killed in October 1984, this son, Rajiv, was sworn in as prime minister. One of his first acts was to bring his old schoolfriends into politics. Like his mother, he could not bring himself to trust his own partymen. While promoting his friends, he behaved arrogantly towards senior leaders of the Congress, and towards senior bureaucrats. At least one chief minister and one foreign secretary were sacked at impromptu press conferences. Meanwhile, his friends from outside politics gave him the most disastrous advice, persuading him to open the locks in Ayodhya and to upturn the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Shah Bano case.
Jawaharlal Nehru did not hope or desire that his daughter should succeed him as prime minister - a fact that is not as widely known as it should be. On the other hand, Indira Gandhi worked to make first Sanjay and then Rajiv her political successor. Sonia Gandhi has followed her mother-in-law scrupulously in this respect, for she has likewise ensured that her own son would head the party, and, perhaps in time, the government. The example set by India’s greatest political party has been followed by many lesser ones. Had Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi not acted in this fashion, perhaps Bal Thackeray, Parkash Singh Badal, M. Karunanidhi and Mulayam Singh Yadav would not so brazenly have treated their own political parties as family firms.
The novelist, Gore Vidal, once remarked of his adopted homeland, Italy, that it combined the worst features of socialism with the worst features of capitalism. The Republic of India goes one step further - it adds, to the worst features of socialism and of capitalism, the worst features of feudalism. When family and kin are so influential in other spheres of social life, perhaps it was merely a matter of time before they made their presence felt in party politics. It may be that the Congress of Gandhi and Nehru was an aberration. Even if Indira Gandhi had not accidentally become prime minister, for how long would the Congress have continued as a political party with a robust organization, its top jobs open to all, regardless of birth or status? Would it not have succumbed sooner or later to the culture of nepotism and favouritism that is so ubiquitous in India?
I think that we must resist this cynical conclusion. For much of its history, the Congress was a democratic, decentralized party, with strong state units and a cadre of dedicated and patriotic workers. Its best leaders were, in terms of intelligence and integrity, a match for politicians anywhere. Before Independence, the Congress promoted a distinctive form of nationalism, that was inclusive and non-adversarial. After Independence, it united a nation from its fragments and nurtured the institutions and processes of democracy. It is only in the last three decades that the Congress has worked instead to degrade rather than deepen democracy.
A Spanish journalist recently asked me what I thought the “greatest enemy of the Congress” was. I answered, immediately and instinctively, “Itself”. The decline and degradation of the Congress do not bode well for the future of Indian democracy. For the rival parties are steeped in one or other variety of parochialism, based on caste, region or religion. The Congress remains, at least in theory, the only national party. Were it to rid itself of control by a single family, it may once more begin to contribute constructively to the redemption of the idea of India.
Filed under
Cite this article
Ramachandra Guha (2009) ‘Its own greatest enemy’, India Together, 10 May 2009. https://indiatogether.org/congress2-op-ed/
13 reader responses
Add a response
charan gill · 11 April 2009
Really exciting. Congress played the maximum possible nationalist democratic role. If indian communists had not failed to understand the depth underlying the congress movement, the national democratic task would have been completed long ago.
shama zaidi · 20 April 2009
today the congress is simply a monarchial party, with the members outdoing each other trying to curry favour with the ruling family. no leader with a mass base is allowed to rise.everyone has to simply sing the praises of the nehru-gandhi family. on the other hand the b.j.p. is a purely facist party and the c.p.m. is stuck in the stalinist mode. none of our national parties has any sort of internal democracy. and all the regional parties are warlord parties each with a supreme leader and an army of goons and sycophants.
Satdeep Gill · 29 April 2009
Once again we see Indian national congress is fast remodelling itself. Democratic Centralism is being replaced by centralized democracy . The experiment in Punjab youth congress is encouragingly. the emphasis on the ideology of secular democracy in the recent election campaign is the next healthy sign. The great effort by Rahul Gandhi deserves all praise.
vivek Joshi · 4 May 2009
Hi, National parties and leaders needs to have an understanding and vision about a nation that only INC seems to have. Any National partys vision can be seen in its actions specially during the elections. On one hand we have INC who have leader like Shri Rahul Gandhi who are working on grass roots level and on other hand we have BJP which as party only critics or opposes every this the INC does as they do not have the required think tank. Today, we have one more Gandhi working on weaving the country together. BJP leadership needs to understand that You cant win election in creating fear & spreading negative feelings across the country. This is against the Divine vision of Love and brotherhood. At this pace which it is defocusing on issues I feel the party itself may get dissolved or disintegrated in coming years with strong leaders like shri Narinder Modi forming regional parties. Celebrating the stable government that we will get this time also.
Vikram · 10 May 2009
I think there were other (in hindsight perhaps more) significant problems in the ideological makeup of the Congress. 1) The Congress did not really have room for assertive lower caste leaders. They could only rise upto a certain level in the party hierarchy, not anymore. This is why the Congress did not produce a Mayawati in the first few decades after independence. 2) The Congress, though itself decentralized was not committed to decentralization in India's federal framework. Political aspirations in the South, Kashmir and the NE were either suppressed or ignored.
R.Krishna · 10 May 2009
Sir, a very well written article, article which a historian like you can only write. Sychopancy, nepotism and corruption are slowly killing the congress party. It's high time, senior leaders like arjun singh, pranab mukherjee, Dr. Manmohan Singh etc.... start taking independent decisions instead of listening to the high command and bowing to the madam.
pawan gulati · 12 May 2009
A thought provoking article.The congrss needs to rebuilld and reshape its organisation by spearheading ideological campaigns in a populist mode in order to confront communal-fascist ideas which has considerable roots, appeal and following among the middle class. That's why Modi-type politics flourishes .
charan gill · 15 May 2009
We can enumerate the fifth strategy;cooperation with communists(both at international and national level).CPI went to anti congress left unity in 1978.In 1980 Indra Gandhi tried to revive the cooperation but did not succeed.The resulting disunity among nationalists opened many spaces for all round degeneration and for communal forces advance.for regegeneration national forces need an objective review of the recent past.
Laxminarayana Paladi · 17 May 2009
Dear Guhaji, Is there any contitutional bar to become "GUHAJEE" the prime minister of India? Sonia Gandhi was quite away from politics for 8 years after the assasination of her husband Rajev Gandhi. Were you a monor to go to that post? We can have enough journalistic skils, but it is dificult to have an unbiases thinking. Do you want to kep away the Gandhi family from politics/ or you want the security and socioeconomic development of the great country the India? It is not understod why many people like you are ready to forego the future of country but don't stop jelous on certain great family. Simply journalistic skils wil not get any thing to the society but the way you think. Many journalists in India are por thinkers and not bothered about the country. Laxminarayana Paladi
Satdeep Gill · 20 May 2009
sir , my former comment stands vindicated by election results.congress has shifted gear from self destruct to self construct mode.both Sonia and Rahul are using the dynastic opportunity to strengthen the party and are earning the love of indian people.nobody could have stopped Rahul from becoming PM if he himself wanted to.but the mother and son are looking for the ways they can better serve the nation.the reliable cohesive top is always the hub of any dynamic revolutionary party .first Indira's then Rajeev's assassinations has destroyed that top and chances of its constant renewal.after much effort Sonia is successful in building such a top which may be counted rare in the history of great parties.INC is seriously pursuing its goal of democratic nationalism, i do feel.all indications of a glorious future for indian democracy.
MUKUNDARAJAN · 24 May 2009
Excellent article.The recent electoral victory will only strengthen the dynastic orientation of the party.Already, a halo is being built around Rahul, the PM -in -waiting.The success in UP is attributed to his strategy, but the loss in Bihar is on account of Lalu's perfidy.Sonia's strategy is to make it appear that Rahul is building the party and learning the art of governance. The servile congress leaders will do their best to build his image by dedicating all successful policies to Rahul's planning.If one goes by the past history, the arrogance of electoral success will catch up with the Congress sooner or later.It is a pity that a truly national organisation should be tied to the apron strings of a family.
RAJESH PANDEY · 26 May 2009
Mr. Guha deserves kudos for telling us the truth about the systematic destruction of Congress Party and Constitutional Institutions by Indira Gandhi. The youth of today are being led to believe that Indira and Rajiv Gandhi were flawless visionaries, and it is easy for this youth to believe that falsehood when they see the current crop of leaders like Karunanidhi (promoting sons and daughters of his various wives), Prakash Singh Badal (blinded by son-stroke too), Varun Gandhi (almost a hero from a C-grade bollywood film) or the close relatives of Pappu Yadav. But I remember a comment in 'Industrial and Political Weekly' by a worthy columnist, immediately after death of Indira Gandhi - Indira pursued National interest whenever it coincided with National interest and whenever there was conflict between her personal interest and National interest, the National interest suffered. This article opens our eyes to that truth. Despite the desirable objective of freeing Congress of dynasty, it has to be accepted in the medium term that dynastic politics remains acceptable in India. It is due to our deep rooted feudal mind-set that we, the educated individuals of India, also find dynastic politics acceptable. I have frequently heard that second generation politicians should be less corrupt than the new breed (like Mayawati). But we know the truth - children of Badal, Karunanidhi, Deve Gowda, etc. are reportedly achieving newer heights in amassing wealth, after having mastered the art of obtaining the 'Licence to Loot' from the Election Commission of India. When todays electoral politics needs wealthy candidates, it must breed them too. That is the real reason for continuation of the current crop of political leaders. Individuals of integrity and accomplishments like Avinash Dharmadhikari from Pune have always lost their deposits. This trend continues, whether from South Mumbai or the three candidates of Lok Rajniti Manch, in the latest Lok Sabha elections. The educated class believes that the clean honest person has no place in politics. And so we get the relatives of de-barred Pappu Yadav as candidates fielded by Holier than thou Congress, what to talk of BSP and SP. The blame for the legitimacy given to the dynastic politics, despite its inherent anti-democratic nature, has to be taken by the Congress. What Congress does today, is done by minor parties tomorrow. So when Congress takes credit for its achievements, it also has to take the blame for the wrongs institutionalized by it. It is only because of Dynastic politics, and its beneficiaries that even in the (so called National) Advertisements of Prasar Bharti, Sardar Patel, and many other National Leaders like Jayprakash Narayan, Achrya Kriplani, Rajendra Prasad, Dr. Radhakrishnan are omitted, though Rajiv Gandhi is shown as one of the greatest ever national leaders. But then history is written by the rulers. Are you listening Mr. Guha, the Historian?
Sameet · 4 June 2009
Dear Guhaji, thanks for the fantastic piece of witting but i would like to put forth few questions that comes into my mind after going through it. As you have mentioned in one place about the Bhakti culture is it the culture of Indians and if so is it possible that a national party will not be lead by a family or a charismatic leader? if it is true why not the national parties like BJP and the communist are still not a family centric party? will they turn into so in future?