Opinion

The party's over: Why India doesn't need the Congress anymore

The grand old party was ideal for securing independence, but is unsuited to today’s competitive politics.

The leadership of the Indian National Congress has attempted to recast the party’s performance in the recent Assembly elections – sweeping defeats in all four states, with a consolation victory in Puducherry – in a positive light. They are adept at finding silver linings, having had plenty of practice in recent times.

But to most observers both inside and outside the Congress, the results only underline the extent of the party’s crisis. The Congress now remains in power in only six states, three of them small and in the North East. While Digvijaya Singh said his party needs surgery, Mani Shankar Aiyar, always more sanguine about the prospects of the Gandhis and the Congress, also admitted that a course of medication was required.

The most popular prescription is the natural one for a party with a chronic habit of losing elections: A change of leadership. Congressmen themselves, briefing the press off the record, generally confine their complaints to Rahul Gandhi’s ineptitude. This is true even of disaffected ex-Congressmen like Himanta Biswa Sarma, who helped mastermind the Bharatiya Janata Party’s victory in Assam. Sarma refuses to criticise the Congress president, Sonia Gandhi.

Political commentators unaffiliated with the party have been calling for the Gandhi family as a whole to be replaced. R Jagannathan of Swarajya – the most pro-government publication this side of the Organiser – in keeping with the medical theme, recommends a lobotomy for the Congress. It’s been some time since Jagannathan has been a well-wisher of the Congress but even Mukul Kesavan, a critic sympathetic to the Congress, hopes for a “daring usurper” who will “set the Grand Old Party walking upright again”.

The dynastic principle

Those who call for a Gandhi-mukt Congress make two assumptions – both of them flawed, if not wholly untenable. The first is that such a party would be a viable and coherent political proposition. The second is that India still needs the Congress, the party that led the Independence movement and, in some form, has governed the Centre for 55 of our 69 years as a nation-state.

There are at least two related problems with the first assumption. First, since Sanjay Gandhi’s entry into politics some four decades ago, the party has increasingly been organised and unified not by any discernible ideology or political programme but by the dynastic principle. Viewed as a whole, it is not quite right to say that the Gandhis lead the Congress; they are the Congress. It is less a party than a court, of a kingdom whose territory is in rapid contraction.

As one would expect of a court, dynasticism also infects the Congress at every level. Himanta Biswa Sarma joined the Bharatiya Janata Party out of frustration with a “blue-blood culture” that saw Tarun Gogoi’s son Gaurav promoted at Sarma’s expense. The next generation of Congress leadership, that is, the people typically mooted as successors or alternatives to the Gandhis, are almost exclusively dynasts too, like Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindia.

One of the lessons of India’s post-Independence politics is that dynasticism in parties is an incurable disease. Once a party has traded ideology for family rule, there is no turning back. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Shiromani Akali Dal were once deeply ideological and broadly meritocratic. But they are now family firms, and politicians with ambition must look elsewhere. Similarly, the Shiv Sena, Samajwadi Party and Telangana Rashtra Samithi were not founded as family parties, but now are organised as such and will remain so.

The second problem with the idea of a Congress with new leaders is the matter of keeping such a party together. The years 1991-’98, when Sonia Gandhi largely stayed out of politics, offer a prophecy of the inevitable break-up of the Congress that would follow the departure of the Gandhis. During that period, senior leaders like Madhavrao Scindia, Arjun Singh and ND Tiwari left to form their own parties. Singh and Tiwari called their outfit the All India Indira Congress. Even Mani Shankar Aiyar, the model of the loyal Congressman, decamped for the Trinamool Congress, which was formed in 1998. When Sonia Gandhi returned to save the splintering Congress, all these leaders returned to the fold.

This indicated that to the party’s senior leaders, a Congress without the Gandhis was no Congress at all. There is no reason to expect things to be different in 2016. Without the Gandhis, what the Congress principally has to offer to its members is a universally known brand name and symbol – but a brand name that has aged about as well as Air India.

Pluralism or cynicism?

Then, what of the notion that India still needs the Congress, or a Congress? Kesavan reminds us of the importance of the “pluralist tradition” of this “non-sectarian umbrella party”. The Congress’ history as a big-tent pluralist party, rather than an ideological grouping, is a function of its origins as an anti-colonial nationalist organisation rather than a conventional political party. In Kesavan’s inspired coinage, the Congress was the Noah’s Ark of nationalism, allowing room for every species. Why should this model hold up after 65 years of multi-party electoral politics, and four decades of dynasticism? In practice, the Congress’ pluralism means a vision of the polity as a set of groups, rather than citizens (a vision shared by the BJP and most other parties), and the willingness to offer something to every one of these groups.

Thus we have an avowedly secular party capable of pandering to religious fundamentalists of all stripes, fair-weather friend to aam aadmi and crony capitalist, which led and directed an anti-Sikh pogrom and retained those responsible as Cabinet ministers and yet gave us our first Sikh prime minister.

The best that can be said about this version of the Congress is that, unlike most other Indian parties, it has never really regarded any group of Indians as enemies. Every one, in the right circumstances, is a potential Congress voter. But a party that can stand for anything is quite likely to stand for nothing, and this form of pluralism usually means grubby cynicism.

Rise of regional parties

India might still need even such a Congress if the rise of Modi and the BJP’s growth as a national party was going unchallenged. But two years’ worth of elections show that a Congress-mukt Bharat is not the same thing as unchallenged BJP dominance. State after state has reminded us of the resilience of competitive politics. Our current political era is less like the Congress monopoly of the 1950s and more like the 1970s and 1980s, with one powerful national party counterbalanced by a diverse opposition.

The Congress vote is less likely to go to the BJP than to go elsewhere, often going to parties that retain a form of the Congress’ big-tent pluralism, whether it is the Aam Aadmi Party, the Janata Dal (United), or regional Congress offshoots like the Trinamool or the Biju Janata Dal. Across the country, those who oppose Modi and the BJP have plenty of options, often better ones than the Congress has presented or is likely to present.

An enduring faith in the possibility of a revived Gandhi-free Congress is animated by nostalgia for a once truly great party and, at times, by the belief in the desirability of two-party politics. But political parties are no more permanent than other institutions, nor should they be. The 1885-1969 Congress increasingly looks like an organisation of its time, ideal for a national movement and the first phase of nation-building, but unsuited to the more conventional competitive politics that followed.

The Congress’ present-day importance is often exaggerated by a New Delhi-centric view of the country in which national politics hold primacy. Losing the Gandhis would mean losing the Congress. But if one views India as a collection of diverse states, and as a country in need of less and not more centralisation, the death of the Congress is not in itself something to be feared or mourned.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

Want to retire at 45? Make your money work for you

Common sense and some discipline are all you need.

Dreaming of writing that book or taking that cruise when you hit your 40s? Well, this dream need not be unrealistic.

All it takes is simple math and the foresight to do some smart financial planning when you are still young. If you start early and get into the discipline of cutting down on unnecessary expenditure, using that money to invest systematically, you can build wealth that sets you free to tick those items off your bucket list sooner than later.

A quick look at how much you spend on indulgences will give you an idea of how much you can save and invest. For example, if you spend, say Rs. 1,000 on movie watching per week, this amount compounded over 10 years means you would have spent around Rs 7,52,000 on just movies! You can try this calculation for yourself. Think of any weekly or monthly expense you regularly make. Now use this calculator to understand how much these expenses will pile up overtime with the current rate of inflation.

Now imagine how this money could have grown at the end of 10 years and overcome the inflation effect if you had instead invested a part of it somewhere!

It is no rocket science

The fact is that financial planning is simpler than we imagine it to be. Some simple common sense and a clear prioritization of life’s goals is all you need:

  1. Set goals and work backwards: Everything starts with what you want. So, what are your goals? Are they short-term (like buying a car), medium-term (buying a house) or long-term (comfortable living post-retirement). Most of us have goals that come under all the three categories. So, our financial plans should reflect that. Buying a house, for example, would mean saving up enough money for up-front payment and ensuring you have a regular source of income for EMI payment for a period of at least 15-20 years. Buying a car on the other hand might just involve having a steady stream of income to pay off the car loan.
  2. Save first, spend later: Many of us make the mistake of putting what is left, after all our expenses have been met, in the savings kitty. But the reverse will have more benefits in the long run. This means, putting aside a little savings, right at the beginning of the month in the investment option that works best for you. You can then use the balance to spend on your expenditures. This discipline ensures that come what may, you remain on track with your saving goals.
  3. Don’t flaunt money, but use it to create more: When you are young and get your first jobit is tempting to spend on a great lifestyle. But as we’ve discussed, even the small indulgences add up to a serious amount of cash over time. Instead, by regulating indulgences now and investing the rest of your money, you can actually become wealthy instead of just seeming to be so.
  4. Set aside emergency funds: When an emergency arises, like sudden hospitalisation or an accident, quick access to money is needed. This means keeping aside some of your money in liquid assets (accessible whenever you want it). It thus makes sense to regularly save a little towards creating this emergency fund in an investment that can be easily liquidated.
  5. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket: This is something any investment adviser will tell you, simply because different investment options come with different benefits and risks and suit different investment horizons. By investing in a variety of instruments or options, you can hedge against possible risks and also meet different goals.

How and Why Mutual Funds work

A mutual fund is a professionally managed investment scheme that pools money collected from investors like you and invests this into a diversified portfolio (an optimal mix) of stocks, bonds and other securities.

As an investor, you buy ‘units’, under a mutual fund scheme. The value of these units (Net Asset Value) fluctuates depending on the market value of the mutual fund’s investments. So, the units can be bought or redeemed as per your needs and based on the value.

As mentioned, the fund is managed by professionals who follow the market closely to make calls on where to invest money. This makes these funds a great option for someone who isn’t financially very savvy but is interested in saving up for the future.

So how is a mutual fund going to help to meet your savings goals? Here’s a quick Q&A helps you understand just that:

  1. How do mutual funds meet my investment needs? Mutual Funds come with a variety of schemes that suit different goals depending on whether they are short-term, medium-term or long-term.
  2. Can I withdraw money whenever I want to? There are several mutual funds that offer liquidity – quick and easy access to your money when you want it. For example, there are liquid mutual funds which do not have any lock in period and you can invest your surplus money even for one day. Based on your goals, you can divide your money between funds with longer term or shorter term benefits.
  3. Does it help save on taxes? Investing in certain types of mutual funds also offers you tax benefits. More specifically, investing in Equity Linked Saving Schemes, which are funds that invest in a diverse portfolio of equities, offers you tax deductions up to Rs. 1.5 lakhs under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act.
  4. Don’t I need a lot of money to invest in MFs? No, you can start small. The returns in terms of percentage is the same irrespective of the amount you invest in. Additionally, the Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) allows you to invest a small amount weekly, monthly or quarterly in a mutual fund. So, you get to control the size and frequency of your investment and make sure you save before you spend.
  5. But aren’t MFs risky? Well many things in life are risky! Mutual funds try to mitigate your risk by investing your money across a variety of securities. You can further hedge risk by investing in 2 to 3 mutual offers that offer different growth stories i.e. a blue-chip fund and a mid-cap fund. Also remember in a mutual fund, your money is being managed by professionals who are constantly following the market.
  6. Don’t I have to wait too long to get back my returns? No! Mutual Funds, because of the variety of options they offer, can give you gains in the short or medium term too.

The essence of mutual funds is that your money is not lying idle, but is dynamically invested and working for you. To know more about how investing in mutual funds really works for you, see here.

Disclaimer: Mutual Fund investments are subject to market risks, read all scheme related documents carefully.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Mutual Funds Sahi Hai and not by the Scroll editorial team.