A tradition of doubtful utility has crept in — of top political leaders not taking the public into confidence about the challenges we face as a nation, short-term as well as those of longer duration. This translates to not offering a party’s or government’s proposed approach to deal with difficult or troubling issues. Instead, the people are treated to rhetoric, clichés, old announcements, and future programmes stated in the baldest terms. There tends to be a reiteration of what is known, rather an effort to draw public attention to what the people ought to know, which could then become the basis of discussion. A democratic polity deserves better. There have been exceptions, of course, such as Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru writing letters to chief ministers on a regular basis outlining in some detail challenges in the world and within the country, and his thoughts on how best to meet those. It is a pity that the AICC session held in New Delhi on Tuesday did not attempt to set a benchmark and only conformed to what has become the norm.
Congress president Sonia Gandhi reiterated several important issues with pithiness. But meeting her party colleagues drawn from across the country for the first time since the victory of the Congress-led coalition in last year’s Lok Sabha election, she could have gone a step further. Nevertheless, there were some noteworthy formulations in her speech which were not reflected in the news coverage. She referred, for instance, to Naxalism as a “serious” internal security threat, not the foremost one, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government holds. There is clearly a subtle distinction being made here. The Congress chief also noted that besides police action, greater sensitivity was needed on developing the deprived areas where the Naxals are active. But, she said, it was “the nature of that development that is in question”. Her thinking: “People must have a say and they must have a stake. Destroying forests and their habitat through the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources does not necessarily bring them out of the abject poverty.” There also seemed in Mrs Gandhi’s speech a greater emphasis on bringing to justice those who attacked Mumbai in November 2008. She said the terrorist threat was “real and constant”, and noted that it was “crystal clear” who masterminded the Mumbai attacks, and said they “must be brought to justice”. The government has not expressed itself with such forthrightness.
Two omissions at the AICC need to be pointed out. The first, of course, is that the issue of corruption, which invariably works to the detriment of the poor, went by default in the deliberations. It is surprising this should have been the case when much publicised land scams are the keenest subject of debate in the country. The second glaring omission is the method of working within the Congress. Mr Rahul Gandhi has quite rightly been seeking to spread the message in the past two years of returning to the system of internal elections within the Congress if the party machine is to become vibrant and accountable. He has done what he can in the Youth Congress, which is his principal charge. Unfortunately, however, the AICC has seen it fit to authorise the Congress president to nominate the entire Congress Working Committee. The political attacks on the RSS and on communalism are, of course, pretty standard for the Congress. It drew focused attention at the AICC, given that Assembly elections are due in 10 states in the next two years. This could also be the Congress counter in Parliament to the BJP digging in its heels on the corruption issue.