Mr. Kamal Nath and other Congress leaders are now trying to justify the continuation of Rahul Gandhi’s leadership of Congress party saying that as he was not in the Govt., so he can’t be made responsible for the worst ever drubbing of the Congress party in the just concluded Lok Sabha Election and that resignation doesn’t solve any problem. By trying to defend the indefensible incompetence of Rahul Gandhi, these Congress leaders are actually confirming the well known fact that Rahul is the Shehzada and Congress is under Dynastic rule. In a democracy a leader is required to produce results and perform. Had Modi failed to produce results, somebody else in BJP would have taken over but in case of Rahul there is no such scope for any other leader in Congress party to come forward and take over as the leadership is in the hands of a dynastic family. Doesn't such comments proves that BJP is a democratic and cadre based party, where a deserving candidate is preferred and selected based on public sentiments and performance? And if and when that candidate fails to perform, BJP would not always continue with his leadership. So there is at least some accountability. Now compare this with Congress, the party is open to lose elections after elections and still the sycophant mentality of the members will make sure that Rahul is around until he becomes PM (and a father), so that the dynasty continues. Hence, it is quite natural that Rahul will remain as the sole leader of Congress as it is his family property, but BJP is not anybody's inherited property. Congress has become so arrogant that they are not bothered even when the people of this nation don’t want to see members of this Nehru-Gandhi family as their leader and would do everything possible including manipulating mandates to keep members of this dynasty in power. I’m almost sure that during the next week’s AICC meeting Sonia and Rahul will enact the drama of offering their resignation but the AICC office bearers will reject their resignation overwhelmingly saying that every congressmen in the country is looking towards the Maa-Beta to guide and propel Congress back to their glorious (corrupt?) days of power.
We the people of this nation need at least two Democratic parties for securing India's future. Narendra Modi should leave the race for somebody more capable and acceptable, if rejected by the voters, so should Rahul or Sonia Gandhi. We, the people, subscribe to this democratic principle. But why does this principle not apply to Rahul? I am sure, Kamal Nath and other Congress leaders also believe, that we (the voters) can remove Modi in future by using our votes if he does not live upto his promises and performance. But can Mr. Kamal Nath or any other Congress leader enlighten us, as to what we can do to remove Sonia, Rahul, Priyanka or their children in case we do not like them as our leaders? History of even Congress party reveals that this principle applied to a few, who even without being from the Dynasty came near leading this party or led for a short while. The poor performance in 1967 election diminished the chance of Morarji Desai from becoming the PM. Again, poor performance in 1996 election made Narshimha Rao leave the race. But the culture in Congress today can only produce sycophants and self-seekers. That someone as intellectually handicapped as Rahul Gandhi could think of becoming India’s Prime Minister and that some people who are members or beneficiaries of Congress party, enthusiastically endorsed his candidature is one of Congress’s many descents from the times of the iconic Gandhi to that of his surname hybrids. Apart from the fact of his birth in the Nehru-Gandhi family, how is Rahul qualified to lead the Congress party can’t be convincingly explained by any member of this party. Such demeaning flattery of someone who has so far failed to distinguish himself in any field of human activity reflects very poorly on a 120 years old political party which could not find or rather allowed anybody to lead this party apart from members of a single family. It’s appalling that educated and experienced politicians in Congress party, instead of questioning the credentials and capability of Rahul Gandhi for leading the party let alone PM's job, have now have to fall behind a line as they can’t dare to dream for the post of President of Congress party (and PM’s job) simply because they don’t have the surname. We hope and pray that Rahul Gandhi will reveal some of the great qualities, which he has hidden so far very well from the public. Apparently senior Congress leaders have insider information on his qualities and strengths. So Rahul, our prayers are with you even if the votes were not.
Indira Gandhi started the era and culture of “chamchagiri” in the Congress party and converted it into an extension of the whims & fancies and insecurities of a single individual and a family. Thus, what was loyalty to the party earlier became loyalty to an individual and a family. She destroyed every democratic institution in this country including inner party democracy and right to express unbiased opinion in Congress party, so that nobody can “challenge” her autocratic rule in furthering the cause of her dynasty and converted the Congress into a family business.
The below is what Late Khuswant Singh wrote about Indira Gandhi many years back and we can see a mirror image of her in the current Maa-Beta leadership of Congress and a legacy in what Kamal Nath & other Congress leaders have said :-
“There is nothing spectacular about her rule. She was incapable of tolerating any criticism and she picked up an aversion to some persons because she thought they were challenging her, among them Jaya Prakash Narayan, a good, honest man. She couldn’t stand him because he was a challenge to her as the leader of the country, especially as people grew disillusioned with her rule. There were problems, droughts, challenges and Jaya Prakash Narayan had emerged as a leader. During her reign, corruption increased to enormous levels. She was really very tolerant of corruption, which was another negative mark against her. She knew perfectly well that some of her ministers were extremely corrupt, yet she took no steps against them till it suited her. If she knew someone was corrupt, she tolerated him but if it suited her, she used the same corruption charge to get rid of him. She really had no strong views on corruption, which went sky high during her time. Also, she felt uncomfortable with educated, sophisticated people. So you have the rise of people like Yashpal Kapoor, R K Dhawan, who was a stenographer who worked in her office, Mohammad Yunus, who just hung around her. I believe this was because she had no real education. She went to Shanti Niketan, then she went to Badminton School abroad, then to Oxford. Nowhere did she pass an exam or acquire a degree. She hid her insecurities behind a mask. I think that bred a sort of inferiority complex of not being recognised as an educated person. She would pretend to have read a lot of books. She spoke French, which she picked up when she accompanied her ailing mother Kamala to Switzerland, which went in her favour. There were pros and cons but there was this sense of insecurity when it came to highly intelligent people and people with clear records. She felt more comfortable with second-rate people. How did her insecurities, about which much has been written, affected India? In her insecurity, she destroyed the institutions of democracy. She packed Parliament with her supporters with loyalty being more important than ability; she superseded judges; she corrupted the civil service. Favouritism became a great sport with her. She also knew how to use people against each other and was quite a master of that”.
The Congress not only doesn’t care about people's opinion, but also arrogant enough to state it clearly as Kamal Nath & others have done. It's disheartening to see this 120 years old political party and its leaders remaining prisoners of a Dynasty. They should realize that it's high time now for this family to leave from the Indian political scene with some respect still remaining. You either die as hero or live long enough to see yourself become villain.