An argument has been coming up again and again in political circles for many years. That the members of the Gandhi family are unknowingly working to promote the political success of the BJP. This argument is especially given in the context of Rahul Gandhi. Two main arguments are made against them. The first is that he comes from a political dynasty, whereas now this kind of politics is not getting public support. Secondly, Rahul is not politically skilled. In such a situation, BJP becomes the biggest beneficiary. The argument is also that many people support BJP because they do not see any credible alternative in national politics. Such voters can be wooed through better imagination and more efficient political strategy. Recently this thinking has received a great deal of intellectual support. Ramachandra Guha is among India’s leading intellectuals and is also a respected historian. In one of his articles, Guha has described the Gandhi family as ‘Modi’s helpers’. However, Guha also admits that Rahul is a good person. According to Guha, Rahul lacks discipline, seriousness and experience. Rahul showed discipline only during the Bharat Jodo Yatra. His ability to work hard is not visible consistently. In contrast, their rivals work tirelessly all the time. The energy that Rahul spends on X should be used to strengthen the party at the grassroots level. How to assess these criticisms? Guha says that he is not just giving an opinion, but presenting an argument. According to him, his article is inspired by factual evidence and not by his personal views against the Gandhi family or political dynasty in general. But herein lies the biggest problem with this kind of interpretation. It is surprising to pay so much attention to individuals (leaders). Institutions do not see any role in this. Whereas in political analysis since World War II, major political outcomes—such as consecutive electoral defeats or regime changes—are usually explained by combining both the behavior of leaders and institutional or structural changes. In other words, many different causes have to be looked at together to understand larger political consequences. Leadership is just one of those reasons. Guha does say that public institutions have been weakened, pressure has been put on the media and the judiciary, democratic processes have been harmed, but these things do not play a role in his explanation of the Congress’s electoral defeat. Indira Gandhi’s victory after 1971 and the victory in the war with Pakistan had given her unprecedented power. Yet an Allahabad judge had canceled his election. Similarly, who could match Nehru’s power in the early 1950s? Yet the courts rejected the validity of land reform laws, considering the right to property fundamental, even though it was the mainstay of Nehru’s agricultural policy. Despite a strong government, the courts can function independently. Rahul Gandhi may change his leadership style and may also accept some of Guha’s criticisms. But it is wrong to focus solely on Rahul’s leadership shortcomings to explain the BJP’s continued rule in power. In political analysis since the Second World War, major outcomes—such as electoral defeat or regime change—have been explained by combining both the behavior of leaders and institutional changes. (These are the author’s own views)
Source link
Ashutosh Varshney’s column: Lack of leadership alone cannot decide the course of politics
