Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Sonia Gandhi's main contribution has been to the Congress party, not to the country,
Offsetting that has been her determination that Rahul should succeed her. She stymied the
Congress's development by not encouraging democratic elections for party leaders either
nationally or around the country, thus playing into the hands of those who wanted to resist
change. For years she held back the promotion of new, young leaders while Rahul dithered
about what to do. By contrast, when Rajiv Gandhi was prime minister in the 1980s, young
politicians such as P. Chidambaram, Madhavrao Scindia and Rajesh Pilot were given key
responsibilities as ministers of state - Chidambaram handled national security when he was
40.
One can argue, of course, that Sonia has benefited the country because her revival of
the Congress enabled it to be a viable alternative to the Hindu-nationalist BJP. However,
her lack of vision beyond soft-liberal populist policies was a reminder that India's main
reforms have happened when the dynasty has not been in power - the early years of the
Narasimha Rao 1991-96 government and the BJP's 1998-2004 period.
The conclusion has to be that India would be better off if the dynasty lost its automatic
top role. The Gandhis' supporters argue that it is essential they continue as leaders in order
to hold the Congress party together because, without them, it would splinter and there
would not be any nationally viable party apart from the BJP. Coalition governments would
then be weaker without the Congress as a focal point around which other parties could
gather.
That, however, is a negative argument for keeping a dynasty which is so out of tune at a
time when there are growing demands for significant changes in the way that India is gov-
erned.
Notes
JE, 'In Asia, the dynasties still rule',
New Statesman
, 8 November 1999,
ht-
Conversation with JE
Aarthi Ramachandran,
Decoding Rahul Gandhi
, pp 81-83, Tranquebar Press/Westland,
