It is only natural that a country’s ruling party pays attention to the principal Opposition party. That is why perhaps, at the 83rd plenary of the Congress in Burari, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) got more attention than what was due. In the process the Congress lost yet another opportunity to speak about how their coming to power since 2004 has made India better for the common man. After all, hadn’t they come to power seeking his votes? While the jury is still out on the impact of United Progressive Alliance I on the common man, its tenure since 2009 has only meant pain and penury for him.
At Burari, Congress president Sonia Gandhi “missed the opportunity” (thanks to former US ambassador David Mulford) to explain why she had let him, the common man, down — why she and her party had failed to control the prices of food stuff for over 22 months, including that of humble onion. Why is the common man paying more and more for food while farmers are earning less and less? Why has she preferred to let foodgrains rot in various public sector godowns rather than offer them to the state governments who were seeking greater allocation of grains under the Public Distribution Scheme, even offering to pay slightly higher prices? Case in point: Madhya Pradesh. Why does the sale of people’s assets, such as the spectrum, result in huge losses to the exchequer? If the Congress Party has no role in all these, then who does? What good is it if Mr Clean is our Prime Minister, but right under his nose blatant omissions and commissions have resulted in the loot of public money? The Congress has failed to answer these questions in Parliament where the elected representatives of the common man assemble. But why did Mrs Sonia Gandhi miss the opportunity to answer even her party men?
The Congress Party is celebrating 125 years of its inception this year. Today’s Congress has little in common with the Congress which was in the forefront of the freedom movement. That was a loose forum of people with various and varied ideological inclinations cohabiting for one common cause — freedom from foreign rule. Once freedom was obtained, Mahatma Gandhi rightly suggested that the Congress should be disbanded. This never happened and, since 1947, the Congress Party has tried to be everything to everybody while feeling accountable to nobody. Ask an activist what the Congress stands for or ask a Congressman what s/he stands for and the answers are most often vague. Debates on “Congressism” are elusive, if any. A few vocal Congressmen tout that they stand for the “idea of India”, as if referring to a republic of which you and I are not a part.
Every idea of India is well described and enshrined in the Constitution which we gave ourselves in 1950. But some elementary goals stated in the Directive Principles of the State Policy have actually not been upheld by the Congress, like the Uniform Civil Code. Even after the Supreme Court passed a judgment on the Shah Bano case, political expediency and not the Directive Principles (“idea of India”) guided the Congress.
Post-Independence, the Congress did not make any attempt at asserting its world view wherein all stakeholders could have a role in achieving the “idea of India”. After the death of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and the marginalisation of Jivatram Kripalani, C. Rajagopalachari and P.D. Tandon, the Congress depended entirely on Jawaharlal Nehru. In 1955, at the Avadi Session, Nehru moved a resolution for a socialistic pattern of society. Then came the industrial policy resolution and, in 1959, at Nagpur, cooperative farming and state funding of foodgrains. Under Indira Gandhi in 1969, the socialistic fervour reached its high point with the nationalisation of banks and garibi hatao. But just 15 years after that, Rajiv Gandhi, in the name technological revolution, initiated the shift to public-private operations. With liberalisation in 1991 and today the hurried pushing of the agenda of multi-brand foreign direct investment, the Congress Party has moved from far Left to far Right almost seamlessly. No quibble, no quarrel in any of its annual sessions, no answers to give its partymen or the people.
There is no report of any debate on its core ideology and shifts away from it being held within the party. This may have led the Congress to believe that it has answers to every situation. It is hard to understand why there was no unease when socialism was replaced. Hadn’t Nehru, in 1955, felt that it is not merely a vision or an aspiration, but a pledge?
Post-independence, without the core ideological reinforcement, the routine of passing resolutions failed to give the desired results. Thus, every time the Congress could not deliver on its economic agenda it would rake up the bogey of communalism and play on the insecurities of different communities.
As if on a see-saw, when economic performance was down, the communal agenda was on high, and vice-versa. We can view Burari against this backdrop: The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance is faced with price-rise, corruption, inland attacks, security threats and electoral losses. Governance has failed, institutions diluted, credibility is severely dented. Yet in the party’s conclave there were no discussions, no answers sought or given. Just the see-saw phenomenon.
Communalism was invoked again. This time, in fact, the ground had already been prepared by the home minister who had christened it “Hindu terror”. No sense of proportion or place influenced the Congress’ general secretaries — one chose to speak at a diplomatic dinner earlier, while another chose the podium at Burari. The president herself referred to minority and majority fundamentalism at the opening session and the proverbial old communal wine in a new bottle was served at Burari. The home minister, ignoring the lapses at Varanasi, decided to crystal-gaze and declared to the BJP, “Aapka number nahin aayega”.
The Congress is an old party — 125 years old, and 63 years old even if we believe it was reborn with Independence. It is time it reinvented itself. Else, the BJP phobia will ruin it further.

Nirmala Sitharaman is spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The views expressed in this column are her own.