The post of Congress President held at one time by Jawaharlal Nehru, Subash Chandra Bose, Maulana Azad has been reduced to a mockery.
Watching the entire circus of the Congress Presidential election playing out in the streets and on TV cameras has made a mockery of the party and the oft-spoken ideals which it claims to represent. With the drama around unseating a sitting Chief Minister to “make or convince” him to fight the election, to looking for party “loyalists” to stand in place of a reluctant Rahul Gandhi, this entire election for the Congress President is devoid of democracy. It lacks any discussive mechanism and reeks of authoritarianism as the average party worker is a bystander in the drama rather than a key player in the story. The post of Congress President held at one time by Jawaharlal Nehru, Subash Chandra Bose, Maulana Azad has been reduced to a mockery. The problem is neither ideological nor organizational, it’s a result of the rot that has set inside the organization. One is compelled to revisit the Nehru-Purushottam Das Tandon sparring over the election for Congress President and Tandon’s exit thereafter, which eroded the democratic character of the party.
The separation of the post of party president and Prime Minister was crucial according to Tandon and that Nehru holding two posts i.e. of party president and PM would compromise the democratic ideals of the party. That is precisely what ails the Congress today, since the party failed to follow this separation principle either during the time of Indira Gandhi as PM where she openly interfered in party decisions or in the UPA government since 2004 wherein the separation of the two posts and its functions could not be maintained. In a letter from Tandon to Nehru on 8 January 1953, Tandon argued, criticising Nehru, and said, “I strongly feel that the Congress loses its character by the Prime Minister becoming the President of the Congress. But to become the President of the Congress for another term, while you are PM, breaks the fundamental principle of the independence of the Congress. The Congress and particularly the WC as a body should be independent.”
There was a disagreement between the two over the inclusion of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai in the Working Committee over a clash of ideologies and working style. The Working Committee of the Congress and the post of the President seldom remained independent since Nehru took over as Congress President and refused to allow Tandon to function when he was Congress President whether it was his choice of members to be nominated to the Working Committee or the party ideology. Nehru’s main issue with Tandon was his pro-Hindi stance and also the latter presiding over a reafugee conference for the cause of Hindu refugees after partition, which it was felt would send a wrong message about the Congress.
The messaging in the Congress is missing. To the common man the party seems to be foisting a reluctant President, whether be it Mallikarjun Kharge or Shashi Tharoor or Ashok Gehlot. To the average party worker, this does not inspire confidence as the narrative of the election also suggests all candidates need the “blessings of the Gandhi family” or a new hunt is launched for a loyalist to the family and what it stands for, not the party or its Constitution.
All the oaths of loyalty or apology of a sitting elected, not appointed, Chief Minister have further reduced the party ideals and vichardhara that Mr Rahul Gandhi spoke of. This is not a Presidential election alone, it is an exercise to further diminish the party and uphold the family.
Dr Aishwarya Pandit Sharma is Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School.