Can Priyanka Gandhi Vadra make a difference to Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh? Going by the value of her party in the state, it looks like an impossible task. Congress does not have workers, regional leaders, cadre and a proper cause which can bring different communities together during an election.

Congress has a depleted vote bank and fractured leadership which is divided into different factions. The present support which Congress lent to CAA may get temporary publicity, but the cause may not help it electorally for the simple reason that Muslims may decide to vote for Samajwadi Party (SP) once again during assembly elections. On the other hand, Congress will have to deal with BJP which might gain because of reverse polarisation.

Priyanka’s own late campaign during Lok Sabha elections was a political disaster in 2019. Her entry instead of delivering a hit, turned into a colossal flop. Congress even lost Amethi, a bastion of the Gandhi family. Technically, Priyanka Gandhi has inherited nothing from the Congress Party or her own brother Rahul Gandhi who experimented thrice in Uttar Pradesh.

The point I’m trying to make is that Priyanka Gandhi is virtually starting with scratch. The only thing she today possesses is her conviction and courage which can be lost to prevailing circumstances. Nonetheless, Priyanka has made all the right noises after Lok Sabha debacle that too on her own strength. The credit must be given to Priyanka Gandhi that she did not give up on Uttar Pradesh.

The state is deeply divided on caste and religion. Even during CAA protest, maximum protests happened near Muslim dominated areas and maximum firepower was used against them. The approach towards Muslims was tough. The message was two-fold.

The first message was that the government stands firm on CAA and will use force if protests do not stop. The message was to BJP’s vote bank that it is the only party which stands between them and an aggressive minority. It is a trap which Priyanka Gandhi needs to avoid.

She will need to pick up an issue which resonates closer to the Congress and not the Left parties and BJP. She needs to ensure that the focus remains on issues and not on her. On Monday, she rightly did not allow her own security became a talking point during the press conference. Priyanka Gandhi cannot be an eye-grabber all the time. Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have shown that silent campaign, which is less focused on Gandhis, works well.&nbsp;

She will also need to invest herself in the state by staying there for a few days and even weeks. The present leadership of the Congress is such condition that it cannot even get more than 20 MLAs in the assembly today. None of the leaders of the Uttar Pradesh from Congress can today be projected as Chief Ministers.

If Congress Party can allow Priyanka Gandhi another 10 years in Uttar Pradesh, then something might happen. It took BJP 15 years to come back to power. Today, regional parties are getting stronger and BJP and Congress are directly pitted against each other directly in 8 states. In rest of the states, BJP is the number 1 party and Congress is either number 2, number 3 and in some cases even number 3 party. Maharashtra is a case in example. In almost all cases, BJP has either emerged as the principal party or the principal challenger.

So, it is imperative that Priyanka Gandhi should not get mighty impressed with the TV coverage she gets. Rahul Gandhi fell prey to this temporary adulation. The only way she can revive Congress in Uttar Pradesh is by seen continuously engaged on regional issues in Uttar Pradesh.

Rahul Gandhi by the end of 2010 was considered a tourist in the state. Priyanka Gandhi cannot afford to walk down the same path.

Across the world, major leaderless protests have taken place starting from Tahrir using new communication platforms but fundamentally failed to alter the dynamic of the state or electoral politics in the long run. CAA also runs the risk of walking down the same path as the government has 4 more years to go.&nbsp;

CAA protests are unlike the1970s protests which were personally directed towards Indira Gandhi. &nbsp;

Priyanka might succeded if she stays put in the state and focuses on issues which are important for Congress, its leaders and associated interest groups. 
 
(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Can Priyanka Gandhi Vadra make a difference to Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh? Going by the value of her party in the state, it looks like an impossible task. Congress does not have workers, regional leaders, cadre and a proper cause which can bring different communities together during an election.

Can Priyanka Gandhi Vadra make a difference to Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh? Going by the value of her party in the state, it looks like an impossible task. Congress does not have workers, regional leaders, cadre and a proper cause which can bring different communities together during an election. Congress has a depleted vote bank and fractured leadership which is divided into different factions. The present support which Congress lent to CAA may get temporary publicity, but the cause may not help it electorally for the simple reason that Muslims may decide to vote for Samajwadi Party (SP) once again during assembly elections. On the other hand, Congress will have to deal with BJP which might gain because of reverse polarisation. Priyanka’s own late campaign during Lok Sabha elections was a political disaster in 2019. Her entry instead of delivering a hit, turned into a colossal flop. Congress even lost Amethi, a bastion of the Gandhi family. Technically, Priyanka Gandhi has inherited nothing from the Congress Party or her own brother Rahul Gandhi who experimented thrice in Uttar Pradesh. The point I’m trying to make is that Priyanka Gandhi is virtually starting with scratch. The only thing she today possesses is her conviction and courage which can be lost to prevailing circumstances. Nonetheless, Priyanka has made all the right noises after Lok Sabha debacle that too on her own strength. The credit must be given to Priyanka Gandhi that she did not give up on Uttar Pradesh. The state is deeply divided on caste and religion. Even during CAA protest, maximum protests happened near Muslim dominated areas and maximum firepower was used against them. The approach towards Muslims was tough. The message was two-fold. The first message was that the government stands firm on CAA and will use force if protests do not stop. The message was to BJP’s vote bank that it is the only party which stands between them and an aggressive minority. It is a trap which Priyanka Gandhi needs to avoid. She will need to pick up an issue which resonates closer to the Congress and not the Left parties and BJP. She needs to ensure that the focus remains on issues and not on her. On Monday, she rightly did not allow her own security became a talking point during the press conference. Priyanka Gandhi cannot be an eye-grabber all the time. Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have shown that silent campaign, which is less focused on Gandhis, works well. She will also need to invest herself in the state by staying there for a few days and even weeks. The present leadership of the Congress is such condition that it cannot even get more than 20 MLAs in the assembly today. None of the leaders of the Uttar Pradesh from Congress can today be projected as Chief Ministers. If Congress Party can allow Priyanka Gandhi another 10 years in Uttar Pradesh, then something might happen. It took BJP 15 years to come back to power. Today, regional parties are getting stronger and BJP and Congress are directly pitted against each other directly in 8 states. In rest of the states, BJP is the number 1 party and Congress is either number 2, number 3 and in some cases even number 3 party. Maharashtra is a case in example. In almost all cases, BJP has either emerged as the principal party or the principal challenger. So, it is imperative that Priyanka Gandhi should not get mighty impressed with the TV coverage she gets. Rahul Gandhi fell prey to this temporary adulation. The only way she can revive Congress in Uttar Pradesh is by seen continuously engaged on regional issues in Uttar Pradesh. Rahul Gandhi by the end of 2010 was considered a tourist in the state. Priyanka Gandhi cannot afford to walk down the same path. Across the world, major leaderless protests have taken place starting from Tahrir using new communication platforms but fundamentally failed to alter the dynamic of the state or electoral politics in the long run. CAA also runs the risk of walking down the same path as the government has 4 more years to go. CAA protests are unlike the1970s protests which were personally directed towards Indira Gandhi. Priyanka might succeded if she stays put in the state and focuses on issues which are important for Congress, its leaders and associated interest groups. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Can Priyanka Gandhi make a difference in Uttar Pradesh?

Withdrawal of SPG from Gandhis has ignited a public debate on security for the first family of the Congress. The Opposition has called the move petty whereas Centre argues that decision was made after a detailed security review. The argument is that SPG’s withdrawal is akin to a vendetta and not based on actual assessment.

Congress is comparing the withdrawal of SPG with that of Rajiv Gandhi who was subsequently assassinated by LTTE terrorists in India.&nbsp; 
 
Unlike Rajiv Gandhi, the three Gandhis will continue to receive Z+ security but Congress has already accused Home Minister Amit Shah of petty politics. The difference in two situations lies in the detail.

Former PM Rajiv Gandhi’s security was withdrawn but not replaced adequately by the government of the day. He stood truly exposed. The inadequate security led to his brutal assassination by LTTE bombers who wanted to avenge IPKF operation in Sri Lanka.

Though the fact is that the SPG Act then only provided security to the sitting Prime Ministers. The Act was amended subsequently and provision of security to former PM and their immediate family for 10 years was made. In 2003, the Act was again amended, and it was decided that a yearly assessment would be done for former PMs and their families a year after demitting office. It was also decided that the assessment would be done on a yearly basis. It is through this amendment of 2003, Gandhis continued to enjoy SPG protection.

On the other hand, Indira Gandhi’s case was completely different. Despite warning from intelligence agencies that certain men from her details be removed, Indira Gandhi refused to do it as assessment rested on the religion of the security guards. Rest is history. She was assassinated by her own bodyguard who was indoctrinated post-Operation Blue Star in Amritsar.

Today, the charges and counter-charges disguise the real issue. The real issue is why should security be treated as a status symbol by a politician?

Why should political parties be in the position to choose a security agency for their respective leaders? Do parties get to decide the level of security threat?

Do security agencies buckle under political pressure and make decisions based on preferences of political masters? Lastly, has MHA taken the decision strictly on merit?

A lot of Congress leaders are upset that the courtesy extended to former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not extended to former PM Manmohan Singh. Atal Bihari lost office in 2004 but UPA throughout its tenure ensured that he enjoyed SPG cover.

Even Narendra Modi led government did not withdraw SPG cover of&nbsp;Atal Bihari Vajpayee till he passed away. But in the case of Manmohan Singh, SPG was withdrawn in 2019 and he was provided Z+ security by the paramilitary.

This brings us to the question of security for Gandhis.&nbsp;

No political party or group interest can demand a particular agency provide security to them. No family can enjoy a particular type of security for perpetuity, but it should also be ensured that the state should stop using security as a stick to beat an opponent. Personal protection must be provided on the basis of threat and not on the basis of popular perception or history of a family.&nbsp;

Security must depend on the immediate threat to a person and should not be treated as a status symbol. Throughout the modern world, the security regime of former premiers gets downgraded and size entirely depends on the threat perception. Gandhis have enjoyed the security from 1991 onwards.

Lastly, in politics, rarely decisions come without political angle. Whatever may be the cause of the decision, it keeps BJP’s core constituency happy. Any political attack on Gandhi keeps their flock together. It further strengthens the message that BJP under Modi is not business as usual. Courtesies displayed by NDA 1 will not be extended in the new regime.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Withdrawal of SPG from Gandhis has ignited a public debate on security for the first family of the Congress. The Opposition has called the move petty whereas Centre argues that decision was made after a detailed security review.

Withdrawal of SPG from Gandhis has ignited a public debate on security for the first family of the Congress. The Opposition has called the move petty whereas Centre argues that decision was made after a detailed security review. The argument is that SPG’s withdrawal is akin to a vendetta and not based on actual assessment. Congress is comparing the withdrawal of SPG with that of Rajiv Gandhi who was subsequently assassinated by LTTE terrorists in India. Unlike Rajiv Gandhi, the three Gandhis will continue to receive Z+ security but Congress has already accused Home Minister Amit Shah of petty politics. The difference in two situations lies in the detail. Former PM Rajiv Gandhi’s security was withdrawn but not replaced adequately by the government of the day. He stood truly exposed. The inadequate security led to his brutal assassination by LTTE bombers who wanted to avenge IPKF operation in Sri Lanka. Though the fact is that the SPG Act then only provided security to the sitting Prime Ministers. The Act was amended subsequently and provision of security to former PM and their immediate family for 10 years was made. In 2003, the Act was again amended, and it was decided that a yearly assessment would be done for former PMs and their families a year after demitting office. It was also decided that the assessment would be done on a yearly basis. It is through this amendment of 2003, Gandhis continued to enjoy SPG protection. On the other hand, Indira Gandhi’s case was completely different. Despite warning from intelligence agencies that certain men from her details be removed, Indira Gandhi refused to do it as assessment rested on the religion of the security guards. Rest is history. She was assassinated by her own bodyguard who was indoctrinated post-Operation Blue Star in Amritsar. Today, the charges and counter-charges disguise the real issue. The real issue is why should security be treated as a status symbol by a politician? Why should political parties be in the position to choose a security agency for their respective leaders? Do parties get to decide the level of security threat? Do security agencies buckle under political pressure and make decisions based on preferences of political masters? Lastly, has MHA taken the decision strictly on merit? A lot of Congress leaders are upset that the courtesy extended to former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not extended to former PM Manmohan Singh. Atal Bihari lost office in 2004 but UPA throughout its tenure ensured that he enjoyed SPG cover. Even Narendra Modi led government did not withdraw SPG cover of Atal Bihari Vajpayee till he passed away. But in the case of Manmohan Singh, SPG was withdrawn in 2019 and he was provided Z+ security by the paramilitary. This brings us to the question of security for Gandhis. No political party or group interest can demand a particular agency provide security to them. No family can enjoy a particular type of security for perpetuity, but it should also be ensured that the state should stop using security as a stick to beat an opponent. Personal protection must be provided on the basis of threat and not on the basis of popular perception or history of a family. Security must depend on the immediate threat to a person and should not be treated as a status symbol. Throughout the modern world, the security regime of former premiers gets downgraded and size entirely depends on the threat perception. Gandhis have enjoyed the security from 1991 onwards. Lastly, in politics, rarely decisions come without political angle. Whatever may be the cause of the decision, it keeps BJP’s core constituency happy. Any political attack on Gandhi keeps their flock together. It further strengthens the message that BJP under Modi is not business as usual. Courtesies displayed by NDA 1 will not be extended in the new regime. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Politics of security: Withdrawal of Gandhis' SPG cover

Breaking News: Michel names Gandhis' in AugustaWestland scam

Speaking for people&#39;s Right to Recall their elected representatives if they fail to fulfill their duties, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Varun Gandhi on Friday said that he would not have become a Lok Sabha member had he not hailed from the Gandhi family.

&quot;I am Feroze Varun Gandhi. If my surname was not Gandhi, would I have become an MP at the age of 29? I want to see an India where it doesn&#39;t matter if I am Varun Dutta or Varun Ghosh or Varun Khan. I want to see a nation where all are given equal rights, regardless of their names,&quot; Gandhi said at an event here.

In 2016, the MP from Sultanpur constituency of Uttar Pradesh had proposed an amendment in the Representation of the People Act 1951 through his Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill in the parliament, seeking for the right of common masses to remove their elected representatives within two years from being elected, if 75 percent of those who voted for them are not satisfied with their performance.

Backing the bill, Varun Gandhi said, &quot;Whether you see politics, films, cricket or business, it seems like all doors are closed for the common man.&quot;

He further shared an example of farmers from Tamil Nadu protesting the widespread farmers&#39; suicide in the state, but were ignored by the state assembly.

&quot;On my request, there was a full day session at the Tamil Nadu assembly, and they argued for a full day too, but for doubling the salary of MLAs,&quot; Gandhi said.

Instead, poor people came to donate whatever they could for a campaign to rescue farmers from attempting suicide, the MP told.

He informed that Britain was successfully following this method where an elected representative can be held accountable in case people collectively move a petition and acquire over a lakh signatures in their support.&nbsp;

Varun Gandhi on Friday said that he would not have become a Lok Sabha member had he not hailed from the Gandhi family

Speaking for people's Right to Recall their elected representatives if they fail to fulfill their duties, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Varun Gandhi on Friday said that he would not have become a Lok Sabha member had he not hailed from the Gandhi family. "I am Feroze Varun Gandhi. If my surname was not Gandhi, would I have become an MP at the age of 29? I want to see an India where it doesn't matter if I am Varun Dutta or Varun Ghosh or Varun Khan. I want to see a nation where all are given equal rights, regardless of their names," Gandhi said at an event here. In 2016, the MP from Sultanpur constituency of Uttar Pradesh had proposed an amendment in the Representation of the People Act 1951 through his Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill in the parliament, seeking for the right of common masses to remove their elected representatives within two years from being elected, if 75 percent of those who voted for them are not satisfied with their performance. Backing the bill, Varun Gandhi said, "Whether you see politics, films, cricket or business, it seems like all doors are closed for the common man." He further shared an example of farmers from Tamil Nadu protesting the widespread farmers' suicide in the state, but were ignored by the state assembly. "On my request, there was a full day session at the Tamil Nadu assembly, and they argued for a full day too, but for doubling the salary of MLAs," Gandhi said. Instead, poor people came to donate whatever they could for a campaign to rescue farmers from attempting suicide, the MP told. He informed that Britain was successfully following this method where an elected representative can be held accountable in case people collectively move a petition and acquire over a lakh signatures in their support.

Varun Gandhi: 'If my surname were not Gandhi, would I have become MP at 29'

Shortly after the Lok Sabha elections in 2014, three-time chief minister of a Congress state told me that the Gandhis have become a liability for the Congress. What sounded shocking to me then seems like a cold reality today. Post 2012, every election where Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi campaigned intensively has been lost by the party. The Congress has only been able to retain or regain those states where the state leadership has been strong. This development has been co-terminus with the rise of Modi&rsquo;s brand of politics and Rahul&rsquo;s elevation in the Congress Party. The rise of the BJP also became the rise of Narendra Modi which not only electorally marginalised the Congress but also damaged the Gandhi brand. His campaign model ran down Rahul Gandhi hence his capacity to attract and electrify the voters.

This happened when Narendra Modi had more political baggage than the young Rahul Gandhi. Despite the disadvantage he faced, Modi managed to turn it around. He did this through opportunities inadvertently handed down to him by the Opposition and by projecting himself as an outsider to the corrupt world of the Delhi Durbar. In the process, Rahul Gandhi was successfully projected as a lazy leader who was a product of power and pelf in front of an aspirational India which he has not been able to shake off till date.

Rahul Gandhi not only squandered away the opportunity to understand the humbling process of government work but also proved organisationally inept. Not only did his Youth Congress programme come under tremendous criticism but his transition, forced by his mother Sonia Gandhi, created deep fissures in the party. Married to the defeat of 2014 and 2017, one can safely say that Rahul Gandhi today is turning into a brand liability for the Congress as he fails to draw the voters out on his own account. The truth is that the dynasty is in decline. The truth is that majority of Indians aren&rsquo;t taking Rahul Gandhi seriously. It is failing to connect to a new India on its own accord. It is a difficult truth but stares the Congress in its face and it should worry everyone in the Congress a lot.

The sum and total of five polls is that Narendra Modi today stands as the only pan Indian leader who possesses the ability to move and mobilise multiple social constituencies. Even if concession is given to Rahul Gandhi that the Congress wrested a couple of states, its overall vote share continues to decline. Rahul&#39;s victories never gave him the legitimacy of a mass leader as people gave credit to the state leaders. This time, the family bastion in Uttar Pradesh (UP) was again swept away despite the alliance whereas all seats in Varanasi went into the BJP&rsquo;s pocket indicating that even the home turf of the Gandhis is in tatters.

To top it up is the issue of perception that no leader comes close to Modi. This image has been buffeted further by the economically-contested demonetisation which he used to the party&rsquo;s political advantage in Uttar Pradesh. This not only enhanced his stature but also made all adversaries look small, limited and regional in nature.

The UP results also made Rahul Gandhi fall into the trap of sectional politics. In the 2012 elections, &nbsp;he spoke about the issue of backward Muslims which failed miserably. This time also the same mistake was repeated, but in a different avatar.

Despite appealing to the developmental issues, the dog whisper campaign of the SP-Congress was that with the Muslim Yadav combine with the Congress, the upper-caste vote would do well. This was politically countered by the majority discrimination campaign by BJP which was spearheaded by the prime minister himself. Not only did it derail the alliance, but it also created a united Hindu vote which should worry Congress a lot.

Bluntly putting it, PM Modi has become the biggest Hindu mascot who makes his intention of not running after the minority votes very clear to the electorate. To say that the post-Godhra baggage of the PM has been forgotten by India as he speaks more on development would be to fool oneself. Modi represents a skillful combination of Hindutva and the right-of-center economy of the world. So, to say that the UP results showcase booth-management skills or caste management would be to fool oneself. The vote represents a majority vote against a minority veto which has resurfaced in a much more powerful manner after the 1990s. This is the reason why not a single Muslim candidate was fielded by the BJP in UP and similarly in Assam, where the Muslim population touches 30 per cent of the total votes. This is not limited to India. Through the world, a churn exists where the majority not only asserts itself but also wears its cultural and religious symbols dynamically in the political field.

It is in this contrast that Rahul Gandhi comes across as a perpetually struggling leader who has neither defined his idea nor politics. It is this reality that Rahul Gandhi needs to deal with. It will not resolve itself by visiting temples or talking about Saivism in public because it doesn&rsquo;t look organic.

Congress under Rahul Gandhi can either continue to fight the BJP to preserve its past and the family or can call for internal elections to embrace fresh leadership. Who knows that a tough fight to take over the party might reinvent Rahul Gandhi himself. It did wonders to Sonia Gandhi when she was challenged by Jitendra Prasad. It gave her the legitimacy in front of workers and from there she went on to challenge the BJP. She challenged them state by state and in the process rebuilt a broken party.

The Congress will have to walk the same road again but will have to start the process by addressing the issue of the family first. There is not much of a choice. Fix it or replace it with an outsider. 
 
(WION)

&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

A three-time chief minister of a Congress state told me in 2014 that the Gandhis have become a liability for the Congress

Shortly after the Lok Sabha elections in 2014, three-time chief minister of a Congress state told me that the Gandhis have become a liability for the Congress. What sounded shocking to me then seems like a cold reality today. Post 2012, every election where Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi campaigned intensively has been lost by the party. The Congress has only been able to retain or regain those states where the state leadership has been strong. This development has been co-terminus with the rise of Modi’s brand of politics and Rahul’s elevation in the Congress Party. The rise of the BJP also became the rise of Narendra Modi which not only electorally marginalised the Congress but also damaged the Gandhi brand. His campaign model ran down Rahul Gandhi hence his capacity to attract and electrify the voters. This happened when Narendra Modi had more political baggage than the young Rahul Gandhi. Despite the disadvantage he faced, Modi managed to turn it around. He did this through opportunities inadvertently handed down to him by the Opposition and by projecting himself as an outsider to the corrupt world of the Delhi Durbar. In the process, Rahul Gandhi was successfully projected as a lazy leader who was a product of power and pelf in front of an aspirational India which he has not been able to shake off till date. Rahul Gandhi not only squandered away the opportunity to understand the humbling process of government work but also proved organisationally inept. Not only did his Youth Congress programme come under tremendous criticism but his transition, forced by his mother Sonia Gandhi, created deep fissures in the party. Married to the defeat of 2014 and 2017, one can safely say that Rahul Gandhi today is turning into a brand liability for the Congress as he fails to draw the voters out on his own account. The truth is that the dynasty is in decline. The truth is that majority of Indians aren’t taking Rahul Gandhi seriously. It is failing to connect to a new India on its own accord. It is a difficult truth but stares the Congress in its face and it should worry everyone in the Congress a lot. The sum and total of five polls is that Narendra Modi today stands as the only pan Indian leader who possesses the ability to move and mobilise multiple social constituencies. Even if concession is given to Rahul Gandhi that the Congress wrested a couple of states, its overall vote share continues to decline. Rahul's victories never gave him the legitimacy of a mass leader as people gave credit to the state leaders. This time, the family bastion in Uttar Pradesh (UP) was again swept away despite the alliance whereas all seats in Varanasi went into the BJP’s pocket indicating that even the home turf of the Gandhis is in tatters. To top it up is the issue of perception that no leader comes close to Modi. This image has been buffeted further by the economically-contested demonetisation which he used to the party’s political advantage in Uttar Pradesh. This not only enhanced his stature but also made all adversaries look small, limited and regional in nature. The UP results also made Rahul Gandhi fall into the trap of sectional politics. In the 2012 elections, he spoke about the issue of backward Muslims which failed miserably. This time also the same mistake was repeated, but in a different avatar. Despite appealing to the developmental issues, the dog whisper campaign of the SP-Congress was that with the Muslim Yadav combine with the Congress, the upper-caste vote would do well. This was politically countered by the majority discrimination campaign by BJP which was spearheaded by the prime minister himself. Not only did it derail the alliance, but it also created a united Hindu vote which should worry Congress a lot. Bluntly putting it, PM Modi has become the biggest Hindu mascot who makes his intention of not running after the minority votes very clear to the electorate. To say that the post-Godhra baggage of the PM has been forgotten by India as he speaks more on development would be to fool oneself. Modi represents a skillful combination of Hindutva and the right-of-center economy of the world. So, to say that the UP results showcase booth-management skills or caste management would be to fool oneself. The vote represents a majority vote against a minority veto which has resurfaced in a much more powerful manner after the 1990s. This is the reason why not a single Muslim candidate was fielded by the BJP in UP and similarly in Assam, where the Muslim population touches 30 per cent of the total votes. This is not limited to India. Through the world, a churn exists where the majority not only asserts itself but also wears its cultural and religious symbols dynamically in the political field. It is in this contrast that Rahul Gandhi comes across as a perpetually struggling leader who has neither defined his idea nor politics. It is this reality that Rahul Gandhi needs to deal with. It will not resolve itself by visiting temples or talking about Saivism in public because it doesn’t look organic. Congress under Rahul Gandhi can either continue to fight the BJP to preserve its past and the family or can call for internal elections to embrace fresh leadership. Who knows that a tough fight to take over the party might reinvent Rahul Gandhi himself. It did wonders to Sonia Gandhi when she was challenged by Jitendra Prasad. It gave her the legitimacy in front of workers and from there she went on to challenge the BJP. She challenged them state by state and in the process rebuilt a broken party. The Congress will have to walk the same road again but will have to start the process by addressing the issue of the family first. There is not much of a choice. Fix it or replace it with an outsider. (WION)

The rise of Modi and the fall of Rahul Gandhi

gandhis

Gandhis, News on Gandhis, stories on Gandhis, articles on Gandhis, Gandhis stories at Wion, Gandhis news, Gandhis latest news