“MADAM”, say sycophants in the ruling Congress party, “has taken politics in India to a new plane.” They gush over Sonia Gandhi, who is marking a record 15 years as party chief. Stern but motherly, she is India’s most powerful figure. Manmohan Singh may be prime minister, but she has more clout: overseeing the ruling coalition and the make-up of cabinets, and influencing policy. And she is preparing her son, Rahul Gandhi, for high office, though his only qualification is his name.
The most popular metaphor to describe her meaning for Indian politics is “glue”. Stickiness matters: India’s only truly national party risks crumbling into several regional ones. Divisions threaten the ruling coalition that it heads. Its largest partner, led by a Bengali, Mamata Banerjee, quit in September over a few modest and much-needed economic reforms. On March 19th the next biggest stormed out. The southern Tamil DMK called for protests against Sri Lanka’s abuse of its fellow ethnic Tamils.
Serial sulkers, they could yet return. The finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, said India would be tough on Sri Lanka in a vote this week in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. He knows the coalition is vulnerable without the DMK, with just 230 MPs, less than half the total of 543. Two parties from Uttar Pradesh prop up the government from outside, so an election before 2014 remains unlikely. But they will not back the painful economic and tax changes needed to fix a fiscal mess.
Whatever happens, for the next year Mrs Gandhi will oversee more politicking than effective rule. No change there, then. At least she is said now to relish politics. When she arrived in India she reportedly even shunned reading newspapers. Her main handicap, Italian roots, is rarely mentioned. Even this month, as India and Italy trade bitter exchanges, her loyalty is not questioned. Bilateral ties are strained after the Supreme Court told Italy’s ambassador he had lost his diplomatic immunity, and airports were told to stop him leaving. He had broken a promise to return two marines accused of killing Indian fishermen. Mrs Gandhi this week heaped criticism on the country of her birth.
Her ability to hold together a coalition remains the main strength of Congress. As a secular party with a history of ruling, it has advantages. Under her, Congress readily strikes deals with local parties, such as the DMK, keeping itself weak in state elections in return for support nationally. Darker arts are employed too. Her main fixer, a Gujarati with dyed black hair, Ahmed Patel, is said to flit after midnight along New Delhi’s leafy avenues into the bungalows of the powerful, striking political deals.
State leaders wheel and deal for central public funds. Take Bihar’s chief minister, Nitish Kumar. An ally of the opposition, at times he is mentioned as an outside prime-ministerial hope. After a big rally in Delhi on March 17th, he visited the leaders of Congress, dropping hints he could switch camp. His price? “Backward” status for Bihar to ensure more cash from the centre.
How much longer Madam, who is 66, will stay to oversee these machinations is unclear, but she is eyeing the door. Two years ago a serious illness, rumoured to be cervical cancer, required a month’s secret treatment in New York. She seems fully recovered, appearing energetic at a rally in Nagaland last month. But no one beyond the immediate family has much idea. A mostly deferential press rarely asks tricky questions. An eminent journalist hints at why, describing how a Congress figure once tried to buy him off with a thick bundle of rupees placed in his car. He returned the cash; others presumably do not.
Mrs Gandhi refuses interviews and speaks rarely in parliament or at press conferences. In other mature democracies such snooty indifference would anger the public. A supportive biographer says India is different: demanding responses from leaders is a “Western-minded concern”. Ordinary rural folk expect “silent” communication, he says. Mrs Gandhi need merely show herself as “well meaning”. Yet if such a feudal attitude persists beyond her flunkeys, it is among a shrinking number of the ageing, poor and deferential. For most, Congress should quickly dump the condescension. In recent elections, notably in 2009, the party has relied on urban votes as well as rural ones. The younger, better educated and middle-class are a rising share of the electorate. To them, Mrs Gandhi and others look increasingly out of touch.
A senior party figure last year lamented that the country needs 80m productive, skilled jobs. Rather than think how these might be created, Mrs Gandhi, tutored in politics and policy by Indira Gandhi, believes in huge spending on dole for villagers, a “right” to food dished up by government and other welfare. Only too late, at the end of 2012, did she grasp that subsidy cuts, limits on public spending and encouragement of investors are essential to restore economic strength. Growth of GDP has dipped to 4.5%. For many, that feels like recession. An embittered author and ex-friend of Mrs Gandhi says that, on economic policy, she “cannot think of anyone who has done more damage to the country”.
The road to office, paved with good intentions
Others are more sympathetic. But on many subjects Mrs Gandhi disappoints. She should offer stronger leadership after a rush of horrible cases of violent rape, murder and other abuse of women. On tackling endemic corruption, which requires new ways of financing parties, she is silent. She has even failed to distance herself from her businessman son-in-law, Robert Vadra, who did unusually well from property deals in Haryana.
The most dispiriting legacy, however, is in the nature of her succession. Her son is equally well meaning. He has long talked of promoting meritocracy, ending dynastic privilege and making Congress the first party to have internal democracy. Yet in January, contradicting all that, he accepted the crown of party “vice-president”, without the bother of an election. India now braces for a new stage in its dynastic history. Expect it to be familiar.
Source: Banyan
