Headlines
Lalitgate: Congress' tactical mistakes (Amulya Ganguli)
By allowing parliament to function on the penultimate day of the
monsoon session and participating for a while in a debate on the Lalit
Modi affair, the Congress' mother-and-son leadership has shown it is
something of a novice where tactics are concerned.
Had the
leaders allowed a debate immediately after the "improprieties" of Sushma
Swaraj came to light, they might have been able to score more political
points than what they did last Wednesday.
A debate on the
external affairs minister's procedural lapses soon after the news broke
would have caught the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) off guard,
especially because it would have had to find convincing explanations for
Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje's apparent favouritism towards
the former Indian Premium League (IPL) supremo.
But by refusing
to let parliament function till Sushma Swaraj and Raje resigned along
with the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister, Shivraj Singh Chauhan, the
Congress let the BJP have enough time to gather its wits and formulate
the strategy of a counter-attack.
As much was evident from the
external affairs minister's belligerent speech in the house which
matched Rahul Gandhi's aggressiveness. The result was a draw, with a
clear victory eluding both sides.
While Rahul Gandhi was unable
to substantiate his charge that the minister had committed an act of
criminality by secretly helping a fugitive who, according to Finance
Minister Arun Jaitley, was not legally a fugitive at all, Sushma Swaraj
had to go back to the Bofors scam (1987) and the Bhopal disaster (1984)
to hold her ground.
If anything, the slanging match showed the Congress that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others.
It
is possible, of course, that the BJP would have raked up the past even
if the debate was held on the first day of the session.
But the
Congress would not have earned the reputation in the meantime of being
anti-development by holding parliament to ransom, which has led to an
unprecedented appeal by the corporate sector to the political class to
let parliament function.
Even if India Inc's intervention has
been criticized by the opposition parties, they cannot be unaware that
the concerns of the "haves" are shared by a wide section of the
"have-nots", who are not amused by the slogan-shouting and
placard-waving.
Congress leader Anand Sharma's assertion that the
BJP as an opposition party had also derailed legislative business
cannot be an adequate justification for the Grand Old Party's disruptive
tactics.
However, one beneficial fallout from this sad episode
can be that the politicians in future may refrain from indulging in such
tit-for-tat theatrics which further tarnish their image.
There
is little doubt that the Congress decision to let Sushma Swaraj speak
notwithstanding the din created by Sonia Gandhi's and Rahul Gandhi's
storm-troopers was the result of a growing belief in the party, which
was first voiced by Shashi Tharoor, that the Congress was painting
itself into a corner as the reluctance of several opposition parties to
support its rowdy conduct showed.
It is this dissatisfaction
which has led to the first signs of a rival group which is distancing
itself from the Congress and the Left. As much was evident from the
attendance at a meeting convened by Nationalist Congress Party (NAC)
leader Sharad Pawar, of bigwigs like the Samajwadi Party's Mulayam Singh
Yadav, the Janata Dal-United's Sharad Yadav, the National Conference's
Farooq Abdullah and Trinamool Congress' Mamata Banerjee.
If the
BJP succeeds in securing their support for the passage of at least the
Goods and Services Bill, if not the amended land law, during a special
session, the Congress will find itself isolated with only its ally of
the 2004-08 period, the Left, giving it company.
It is obvious that by taking an extreme position on the ministerial resignations, the Congress has left itself no escape route.
A
possible reason for this tactical error is that the party's present
leadership has never faced a serious challenge till now. As a result it
is at a loss as to how to deal with one except by creating a ruckus.
Sonia
Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi rode to power with their band of courtiers in
2004 because, as Atal Bihari Vajpayee believed, the BJP lost because of
the revulsion caused by the 2002 riots.
Then, for the next 10
years, the Congress had an easy run as the BJP became something of a
'kati patang' or a drifting kite, as a fellow-traveller, Arun Shourie,
said.
However, the abrupt end last year of the Congress' reign
seemingly puzzled and angered the party, and especially its first
family, which is probably afraid that its grip on the organization may
slacken in the absence of a fighting spirit since it is feudal loyalty
which holds the outfit together rather than any clear ideology other
than a vague socialism.
But the mistake which Sonia Gandhi and
Rahul Gandhi have made is not trying to unite the opposition parties on
issues on which there can be a wide measure of agreement.
The
land law is one such subject, but the mother-and-son duo took the wrong
turn when they insisted on demanding the resignations of the alleged
wrong-doers first and holding discussions later.
(15.08.2015 -
Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal.
He can be reached at [email protected])