A WELL-KNOWN Indian fashion designer, who had recently flown home from New York, said to me at a dinner in Delhi: “For the first time in a long time, I didn’t feel like coming back. I felt like it used to be in the old days, when we would go abroad and didn’t want to come back.”
The designer was referring to the malaise that has settled over this once hopeful country. People in India will give you many reasons for it. They will cite the growth rate — once nearing 10 percent, now barely 5 — they will talk of the corruption, in every sector from telecom to land to coal, that has totally discredited Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government; they will mention the reforms that never happened. And they are not wrong to talk of these things. But these are only symptoms. Not the cause of the gloom, but emanations from it.
What really ails the world’s largest democracy, and what has caused it to lose its footing at this crucial moment in its development, is that its oldest party, its ruling party, the party that invented dynastic democracy, the Congress Party, has found, in the person of Rahul Gandhi, an abysmal mediocrity for an heir. It makes for such sad reading, this tale of the failed crown prince, that it hardly bears telling, were it not for the fact that it has derailed the aspirations of a billion people.
The story began in 2009, when the Congress Party was re-elected at the head of an alliance of parties. At that point, Mr. Singh, the distinguished architect of India’s economic reforms, had been prime minister for five years. Although there are no term limits on the post, he was already in his late 70s. And his party, which had for so long sought legitimacy in the cult of the Gandhi family, felt it was time to put in place a succession plan: a restoration, after a gap of some two decades, of a Gandhi to the office of prime minister. Mr. Singh was set up as the able regent, Rahul Gandhi — grandson of Indira Gandhi — as the 42-year-old prince in waiting.
Of course — this being a democracy — the heir had to prove himself at the polls. The party, though careful to protect him from having to take full responsibility for an election, wanted him, at the very least, to increase the party’s showing in a major state election or two. They wanted him to display some of that old Gandhi charisma, so that a media only too keen to anoint him anyway would be able to report that the people of India were keener still.
Mr. Gandhi has always come across as a diffident politician. He has turned down the prime minister’s repeated pleas to join the cabinet; he has shied away from projecting himself as his party’s choice for prime minister in 2014; as its general secretary, he has spoken out against dynasty and tried to make his party fairer, less sycophantic. He has, at times, even seemed like a crusader against the very power structure that has bestowed such tremendous unelected power upon him.
All this noblesse oblige would have served as a charming and tasteful backdrop to his rise — an unwilling heir accepting his heavy mantle with a heavy heart. But there was one small problem. In dress rehearsal after dress rehearsal, it became clear that, if anyone was more reluctant to see Rahul Gandhi become prime minister than Rahul Gandhi himself, it was the Indian electorate.
THE party machinery slaved away in state after state. But they could not find a single major election in which Rahul Gandhi was, on the back of his own effort, granted anything resembling a face-saving success. Everywhere he went and, unluckily for him, he went everywhere, he managed to leave the political fortunes of his party either damaged or unchanged.
In Bihar, a state with almost three times the population of California, he succeeded in 2010 in reducing the party’s toehold in an assembly of 243 from 9 seats to 4. Two years later, in Uttar Pradesh, the country’s most populous state, the result was even worse. He toured many of the state’s 400 or so seats, making excited speeches in labored Hindi (never his strong suit) and lavishly promising more handouts, more populist schemes. And yet the Congress Party finished last among the big parties. It lost even in places like Amethi and Rae Bareli, Gandhi family strongholds for decades.
The prince was decent; he was hardworking; he was sincere. But he was, as far as the ballot box went, an unmitigated and un-photo-shoppable disaster.
Source: NYTimes
