Rahul Gandhi has come and gone. He spent five days in Karnataka and most of it was outside Bangalore. In fact, he spent maximum time in the tribal belt that surrounds Mysore and the underdeveloped North Karnataka region. But at the same time he did not forget to connect with the techies in Bangalore and a couple of tier-two towns.
In short, from tribals to techies, he tried to touch a cross-section of people in five days or less than 120 hours.And managed to do and say all the right things.
Sample all the right things he did: He ate with the tribals; danced with the gypsies; named a new-born; met school children; went on a wildlife safari; exchanged notes on ecology; made unscheduled stops at roadside joints to taste 'idli,' 'vada' and 'sambhar'; climbed on his SUV to address the crowds and very often broke the security cordon to greet people.
Now, all the right things he said: He commented against the 'high command' culture of the Congress party; he was upset with the absence of internal democracy within political parties; he admitted that it would have been difficult for him to enter politics were he not a 'Gandhi'; he argued for the empowerment of youth in his party; in a truly enlightened statement he said 'the central idea of politics was to have conversations'; at one place he said 'call me Rahul'; in a frank admission he said that he was sensitive to poverty, but did not really understand it because he had never faced it and on the final day, he appreciated the attention he received from women.
Advertisement
I was trailing Rahul on television channels and through the print media and so itis very difficult for me to say if all that he said and did was sincere and spontaneous, or if it was carefully tutored or was it something that he had picked up by experience-- or was it plain genetic make up, as many would ascribeit to? At the root of this set of questions is a doubt. That is, I am not clear as a reader or a viewer or as a commoner as to why Rahul Gandhi is doing all that he is doing and saying. As to why he is trying to 'DiscoverIndia'. What is the purpose behind it?
Advertisement
He has every right as a private citizen to do so, but the question warrants itself because he is doing it as a public person; as an office-bearer of India's oldest political party and in full media glare. The caravan of his party's senior leaders is moving with him as he does it. It is not a quiet, solitary and reflective journey that he is making.
When Mohandas Gandhi travelled the length and breath of India after his return from South Africa or when Rahul's great grandfather, Pandit Nehru, undertook that mental journey to writeDiscovery of India, there was a tell-tale nationalistic purpose and there was a clear historical setting. Indira Gandhi discovered India withthe need, necessity and authority of a prime minister. But now it is unclear as to why a common man should feel enthused, or rejoiced at the fact that Rahul is discovering India.
The Congress has not explicitly said that he will take over the reigns of India and this is a familiarisation tour before the anointment. It has not said that he is seeking votes in guise. It is notclear if the party has sent him to arrest the slide of its vote base from among tribals or Lingayats of North Karnataka or wrest coastal Karnataka back from the BJP's control or convert the 'apolitical' techie, who by default is believed to be on the political right. If they had said any of thesethings, the purpose would have been clear. Even when BJP leaders go on their yatras, they clearly state their purpose--to build a Ram temple,or whatever else. I wonder if realpolitik is amenable to such an abstract formulation as'discovering India'. This naive formulation shouldn't become a euphemismfor saying 'I am ridding my ignorance'. Politics demands that he beseen to be on a mission. He could easily, for example, have takeninspiration from someone like Abdul Kalam and stated something that at leastshowed some higher purpose: 'I will travel across India and extract the commitment of one million people to join politics or my party.'
But in the absence of any statement, the purpose of Rahul Gandhi's visit toKarnataka--indeed, of all such peregrinations-- will remain unclear. All that hedoes, however genuine, has the danger of remaining a spectacle and giving riseto predictable suspicion, speculation and spin. It was in evidence after the March 28 meeting with techies at the IISc auditorium, which was closed to the media. Some techies who came outof the meeting said that he had a 'Congress agenda' and had urged them to join his party. Rahul had to clarifythe next day that he had said nothing like that.
A newspaper had also called him a 'petulant prince' for reportedly shouting at his senior and junior party colleagues. That too had to be denied. Rahul at somepoint, perhaps, thought that people would perceive him as an independent youth icon and 'discovering India' was a sufficiently neutral formulation to seek a new identity. Yes, he is a youth icon, but not independent. The fact that he belongs to India's most famous political family precedes him.
There is a collateral burden that this trip has created on Rahul's already burdened shoulders. This trip was planned much before the elections were advanced to May in the state. It was planned as a trip independent of the elections. But when Rahul actually landed on March 25 it was certain that elections were round the corner and would be announced any time. So now, this trip, will be linked to the election results that will be out in the last week of May. If Congress gains, Rahul wins-- or else nobody will appreciate he actually came here to pick up a few lessons in cultural anthropology.
