Rahul’s absence from the most crucial budget session

By Deepak Parvatiyar

March 2, 2015

The Gandhis and their Houdini’s escape acts cease to surprise. Remember the Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s repeated sudden disappearances from the country in 2011-12 when her party was at the helm at the Centre? The reason behind her foreign tour and destination were wrapped in secrecy while the official Congress version was that she was undergoing treatment (for some mysterious ailment).

The Congress scion Rahul has now done a Sonia! His disappearance has been as mysterious as his mother’s and yet again, when the Congress is not even a recognised Opposition party in Parliament, no one has any  inkling of his whereabouts. Some suggest he is in the Himalayas, meditating. Some others suggest he is in Bangkok, holidaying. Yet a few even suggest that the Congress Vice President is in Europe for Vipassana!

Why are foreign trips of the Gandhis shrouded in secrecy?

The question that arises is that why should such foreign trips of the Gandhis – the Congress’s topmost leaders — be shrouded in secrecy? Is it because of the security concerns? Then why shouldn’t the government come clean on this aspect? (Remember it is not the Congress government now as was during Sonia’s foreign trips). What is interesting is that those in the Government too are not missing an opportunity at taking a jibe on his disappearance. Consider how the Union Parliamentary Affairs minister Muppavarapu Venkaiah Naidu only recently took a swipe at Rahul’s absence only to retract his statement following the Opposition’s protests in Parliament! Consider Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently telling the Parliament that he should be asked about the places he visits during his foreign tours!

You may also like to read

• About Rahul Gandhi's political career
• About Sonia Gandhi's political career
• About Congress Party

The Rahul issue also reflects poorly on Indian news media. That the media remains clueless (is it possible?) over such periodic disappearances merit some serious questions over probity in public life Vis-à-vis intrusion into one’s private life. During Sonia’s secret foreign tours the news media had surprisingly observed the “omertà”. Now it is Rahul’s disappearance that thoroughly exposes the inadequacies of Indian news media. Why shouldn’t the media, for the sake of public accountability, investigate the whereabouts of as important a leader as the Congress vice president, at a time when the Parliament is in session?

Inarguably seeking details on Rahul’s whereabouts cannot be an act of intrusion into his privacy at a time when the Parliament is debating the budget and also the controversial land acquisition ordinance that the Congress-led Opposition has dubbed as ‘anti-farmers’? (Hasn’t all these years Rahul sought to project himself as a champion of farmers’ rights, pledging that he would not allow their rights to be sacrificed for industrial projects and had an opportunity to take the centre-stage?). What if he decided to take a “leave of absence” only for “a part” of this parliamentary session?

However, the media queries are rather pusillanimous than feisty in nature – at the most they can be termed as stenography at its best and this is hard to understand. Consider how the media has been rendered woefully helpless when it digs the issue and faces a “no comment” from the Congress president Sonia Gandhi. The most that the tallest Congress leader could divulge was that “Rahul is on a few days’ leave… He has already left on leave. Give him a few weeks”.

What though queers the pitch for the Congress is its plea that Rahul has taken a leave to “introspect”. Such a plea indeed is open to many interpretations because of the sheer timing of his vacation. This portends some serious political ramifications for the Congress – whose fortunes have already hit a low after a series of humiliating defeats at the hustings in the last nine months.

Possible rift between Rahul and Sonia

Already rumour mill is abuzz with speculations that Rahul had some serious misgivings with the Congress president (who is also his mother) over not being allowed to restructure the party they run. Sonia was even questioned by the media on this aspect and she stoically remained tight-lipped over the issue. Such speculations over a possible rift between the mother and the son are very much rife within the Congress itself.
If newspaper reports are to be believed then there is yet another twist in the story – the sibling rivalry between Priyanka and Rahul. Already there are reports doing rounds that how Priyanka denied tickets to aspirants who Rahul wanted to contest the assembly and parliament elections.

“He (Rahul) wants full control over the party because he is held responsible for electoral debacles,” an anonymous Congress leader was quoted as saying in media.

It goes beyond saying that Rahul had led the Congress’s poll campaign in the last general elections. He was in charge and the Congress had given him much leeway so as to formulate his strategies such as election primaries and so on. He failed miserably. So what is the hurry for him to annex his mother’s position when he is already the heir apparent, given the Congress’s dynastic culture? Does his haste expose the vulnerability of the beleaguered Gandhis at a time when the Congress seems to be in shambles?

Besides, doesn’t Rahul’s selection of the timing give a sense that he was trying to blackmail the party leadership to accept his demands? This again suggested that there is something wrong between Sonia and Rahul.

There though appears more than just a clash of viewpoints between the Congress president and its vice president. It seems a full blown war between the old courtiers who want Sonia to lead the party, and those who want Rahul to bring about generational changes (such as elections and not nominations to top posts in the Congress Working Committee and so on) in the grand old party.

Senior party leaders such as Digvijay Singh and Kamal Nath have gone hammer and tongs on Rahul should be given full charge of the party. “When I go to Sonia with a problem, she says please go to Rahul Gandhi. When I go to Rahul Gandhi, he says the Congress president will resolve (the issue),” Nath was quoted as saying. Singh on his part seems to reassure that “that he (Rahul) will not run away. He will continue not only as an MP but he also has a larger role in the Congress at the national level”.

Yet, at hindsight, it does sound preposterous that Rahul, by his act of disappearance, would like to challenge the authority of Sonia herself. If he does so then wouldn’t that mean he is shifting all the blame for the Congress’s recent debacles at the hustings on Sonia? This sounds improbable, though cannot be completely ruled out in politics. Yet there is another probability – an imminent power transition in the Congress.

For long Rahul has been groomed to don the mantle of the party. Considering the falling health of Sonia, and the mess that the party is into right now, is he preparing himself for the larger responsibilities, as Singh suggested? And hence, a vacation was planned for him before his anointment?

Even then, in any case Rahul seems to have woefully erred in his timing.

As the events have unfolded one thing seems obvious that his moves have even confounded the Congressmen. Senior party leader and former union minister Shashi Tharoor well reflected this confusion when he articulated: “Very seriously, it would be good if Rahul Gandhi had attended the Budget Session…”

Obviously Rahul’s presence in the House could have avoided the blushes that the Congress now faces because of his disappearance. There are many questions being raised even on Rahul’s sincerity towards the Parliament. Why should the Congress vice president’s vacation coincide with the ongoing Budget session, particularly when he is not on a sick leave? As a Member of Parliament, doesn’t he receive all emoluments entitled to an MP? Can he choose to ignore his responsibilities of raising the voice of his electorates in Parliament as per his convenience? Isn’t he setting a bad precedence by going on leave when he is supposed to be in Parliament? Doesn’t this amount to dereliction of duties on his part?

There is no doubt that the Congress is in a state of turmoil right now. It does need some introspection. But can such introspection be the responsibility of only one individual (read Rahul) who bunks his immediate duty of attending Parliament in such pursuit? In Congress’s dynastic culture, this sounds reasonable. Yet, this indeed does not augur well for the grand 130-year-old party. Isn’t it time that it moves towards collective leadership to reinvent itself?