In some ways, Rahul Gandhi is an enigma. As if to prove the point critics make that the Congress suffers from the dynasty syndrome, he joined the party, was straightaway given a ticket for the Lok Sabha (winning the seat twice in a row), and was made a general secretary, thus reaching the highest levels of party leadership.

After virtually whiling away most of his first term in Parliament, Mr Gandhi made two important interventions. Eventually putting his weight behind Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s vision of the civil nuclear deal with the United States, Mr Gandhi capped the effort with a signal speech in the Lok Sabha on energy and the economy (in the course of the debate on the motion of no-confidence).
Shortly after, showing impressive dynamism and with a display of almost fanatical energy and some skill, he led the Lok Sabha campaign in Uttar Pradesh and brought the Congress nearly a third of the seats in the state. This startled opponents of the party and the Nehru-Gandhi family, and brought him to public notice as one with potential to be a long-term political player. Snide remarks ceased. It began to seem to many that the young Mr Gandhi was on course to bring back Congress’ glory days in Uttar Pradesh, now only a distant memory.
Mr Gandhi went into a shell once again and resumed the tinkering on the political stage that had been his hallmark most of his first term as MP. Beating the odds, he turned up in all sorts of places — in a crowded Mumbai local to cock a snook at the Shiv Sena, in dalit huts in the Uttar Pradesh countryside (scaring Mayawati), in hospitals to meet accident victims, at educational institutions in various states to talk to young people against the wishes of the state’s leaders.
None of this added up to a track record of politics, although in retrospect it may have been Mr Gandhi’s own discovery of India. Mr Gandhi also wasted a lot of time and energy on “democratising” the Congress’ student and youth wings (a losing battle, as in the case of other parties), holding elections in these moribund bodies and selecting new entrants through a process of corporate-style interviews.
Then came the disaster of the Uttar Pradesh state polls earlier this year. The youth and student groups of the Congress came to nothing, underlining the futility of Mr Gandhi spending time and energy on them. The Congress performed marginally better than before, but the stunning Lok Sabha results of 2009 began to seem a fluke. Public perceptions and expectations were managed disastrously, leading to the spreading of the patently false belief that the Congress was in with a chance to capture or share power in Lucknow.
Mr Gandhi himself behaved with an absence of sobriety when he tore up a rival party’s manifesto from the podium. His senior colleague Digvijay Singh was not stopped from perpetuating the canard that the capture and killing of terrorists at Batla House in Delhi was a fake encounter although the courts and the National Human Rights Commission had held otherwise. Ordinary people watched all these things and the question in people’s mind was: Why had Mr Gandhi not handled the whole thing differently? Why had he given in to one-upmanship during the campaign? Why had he not shown more gravitas, greater acuity?
In one way, however, Mr Gandhi rose to the occasion. He accepted full responsibility for the Uttar Pradesh disaster, not falling for the age-old trick of blaming others for failures while accepting praise for success. This should give the Congress heart. Mr Gandhi has recently undertaken to play a larger role on the stage, possibly taking on greater party responsibilities and maybe even joining the government. This would doubtless give his party colleagues hope. But expectation may be another matter.
To get the Congress to have serious expectations from him, Mr Gandhi will have to put his nose to the grind, and go beyond the selective “cameo” roles that Union law minister Salman Khurshid recently spoke of. This means, first, to speak to his own party, all the time and on a regular basis, not confining himself to a dedicated small circle. This is a starting point for avoiding under-performance. Ways have to be found to do this, paying due heed to the demands of security.
But this is only step one. To make the transition from Congress leader to national leader, to lift himself up to the next level, Mr Gandhi will have to speak to the country when the going is tough and citizens feel pressured, when there are controversies on policy and other issues, and also to reveal his own mind and personality, relying on himself, not necessarily on advice. There is no better way to assert leadership.
In eight years of UPA government, we have rarely received leadership from the Prime Minister or the Congress brass on issues of the day. Leading the debate on political or ideological questions or matters of policy is necessary to establish a position of viability (to gain ascendance in Gramsci’s “war of position” in a culturally complex milieu) and to win the confidence of the public. Always playing safe does not befit a leader aspiring to stature.
Long ago, shortly before the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi gave this writer a long interview, readily acceding to the request from unfamiliar quarters. He had not served a day in government. Yet he showed an impressive grasp of the thorny political and policy issues and did not shy away from questions that might cause trouble. He was open, charming and truthful. Rahul Gandhi, in contrast, has tended to avoid the Indian media although he is known to be frank in personal conversations. He appears too guarded. He has to learn the admittedly difficult art of being a public figure.