Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by sob, Sep 11, 2012.
India's Gandhi family: The Rahul problem | The Economist
Close on the heels of the Washington Post article on the Hon. PM, this is surely going to embarrass the Congress Party to no end, and the predictable result will be likes of Kapil "Bushy Eyebrows" Sibal, Diggy Chacha will go all out blasting the writer and Economist Magazine.
By pumping up Rahul Gandhi for 2014 General elections, I think is a strategy by some Congress leaders to get rid of him once and for all, post 2014!
After that, they will have to devise something for Priyanka as well!
All the little emperors are needed to be given a chance to rule India!
And don't forget AMbika Soni and Renuka Chaudhury and maybe that noisy street urchin Narayanswami the PMO man.
Sad that because of this rather ill read Rahul Gandhi, better chaps like Pilot are merely wasting their time as minions to leaders who are best not heard of!
his problem is that he is a normal boy born in high political family .
why media is making him abnormal
A Brainless Wonder?
Is that what is being suggested?
One wonders if that would be fair.
I just saw DD News where he was so attentively listening to the woes of those in the Camps.
Last night I saw the TV news or was it in the newspapers where it appeared that he is dividing UP like an Army command network decentralising command at the grassroot and yet having a centralised supervision for overall policy.
And many political heavyweights like Khurshed has been ignored!
Now that would surely throw up some results!
What is the point of Rahul Gandhi? : The Economist .
The Rahul problem
WHAT is the point of Rahul Gandhi? The 42-year-old scion of the Gandhi dynasty, which has long dominated Indiaâ€™s ruling party, is still the most plausible prime ministerial candidate for Congress at the looming 2014 election. In advance of that, possibly within weeks, he may get some new party post (some talk of a â€œvice presidencyâ€) or possibly a government job (as rural affairs minister, perhaps?). A cabinet reshuffle is awaited, with the washed-out monsoon session of parliament swirling down the drain.
Promoting Mr Gandhi now would in theory make sense for Congress. He has long been presumed the successor-in-waiting to Sonia Gandhi, his mother and the partyâ€™s president. He needs time to start showing some skills as a leader before campaigning starts in 2014. And for as long as Mr Gandhi does not rise, it is hard for other relative youngsters to be promoted without appearing to outshine him. That has left Congress looking ever older and more out of touch.
But he has long refused to take on a responsible position, preferring to work on reorganising Congressâ€™s youth wing, and leading regional election efforts, both with generally poor results. The problem is that Mr Gandhi has so far shown no particular aptitude as a politician, nor even sufficient hunger for the job. He is shy, reluctant to speak to journalists, biographers, potential allies or foes, nor even to raise his voice in parliament. Nobody really knows what he is capable of, nor what he wishes to do should he ever attain power and responsibility. The suspicion is growing that Mr Gandhi himself does not know.
The latest effort to â€œdecodeâ€ Mr Gandhi comes in the form of a limited yet rather well written biography by a political journalist, Aarthi Ramachandran. Her task is a thankless one. Mr Gandhi is an applicant for a big job: ultimately, to lead India. But whereas any other job applicant will at least offer minimal information about his qualifications, work experience, reasons for wanting a post, Mr Gandhi is so secretive and defensive that he wonâ€™t respond to the most basic queries about his studies abroad, his time working for a management consultancy in London, or what he hopes to do as a politician.
Mrs Ramachandranâ€™s bookâ€”along with just about every other one about the Gandhi dynastsâ€”is thus hampered by a lack of first-hand material on its subject. Mr Gandhi can only be judged by his actions, his rare and halting public utterances, and the opinions of others who work near him. Given that limitation, she does a decent job: sympathetically but critically analysing his various efforts. She concludes that his push to modernise the youth organisation of Congress as if it were an ailing corporation, applying management techniques learned from Toyota, were earnest and well-meaning but ultimately doomed to fail. â€œBrandâ€ Rahul, she suggests convincingly, is confused. A man of immense privilege, rising only because of his family name, struggles to look convincing when he talks of meritocracy.
The overall impression of Mr Gandhi from Mrs Ramachandranâ€™s book is that of a figure who has an ill-defined urge to improve the lives of poor Indians, but no real idea of how to do so. He feels obliged to work in politics, but his political strategies are half-baked, and he fails to develop strong ties with any particular constituency. He has tried to disavow the traditional role of a Gandhi (which would pose him as a Western-educated member of the elite with a near-feudal style of concern for the masses) preferring to pitch himself as a man ready to drink the dirty water of village peasants, and to eat food among the most marginalised of society. But his failure to follow up on such gestures (and many others), with policy or prolonged interventions to help a particular group, suggests a man who strikes an attitude but lacks skills in delivering real changeâ€”either as election results, or social improvement.
Part of the problem is presumably the coterie of advisers who surround Mr Gandhi. Western-educated, bright and eager to cosset their leader within a very small bubble, they appear unready for the messy realities of Indian politics: the shady alliances that are required to win elections; the need to strike deals with powerful regional figures who increasingly shape national politics; the importance of crafting a media strategy in an era of cable TV news. More basically, they seem not to have developed any consistent views on policy. What does Mr Gandhi stand for: more liberal economic reforms; defensive nationalism; an expansion of welfare? Instead they prefer to focus on tactics. Perhaps because of their poor advice, their man too often looks opportunistic and inconsistent.
Opportunities have presented themselves to Mr Gandhi in the past couple of years. One was the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement, of last year and this, when young, urban, middle-class voters, in the main, expressed rage at huge scandals overseen by the elderly folk who run Congress and their coalition allies. Mr Hazareâ€™s campaign successfully drew on their anger, yet it was a halting, confused movement. Mr Gandhi might have intervened at some point, and tried himself to tap into public anger over corruption and inequality, and drawn some of the sting of the Hazare campâ€™s efforts.
Or, when Mrs Gandhi was absent, being treated abroad for a serious illness (rumoured to have been cervical cancer), he might have taken charge and confronted the anti-graft campaigners. He could at least have set out evidence for how the government was tackling graft, claimed credit for the governmentâ€™s introduction of a right-to-information act, and lauded the fact that suspect politicians had been arrested and (temporarily) put in jail. Instead he flunked the test in hiding, not daring to speak out, other than in one ill-advised intervention in parliament.
Another opportunity of sorts was to energise Congress in state elections. The failure of the campaign led by Mr Gandhi in Uttar Pradesh (UP) early in 2012 is briefly but convincingly assessed in the biography. Congress did worse in the state during the assembly elections than it had in the 2009 general election. Mr Gandhi led the party to a humiliating fourth place, even doing dismally in constituencies where the Gandhis have long been local MPs.
Perhaps he was doomed to fail from the start (voters did not think Congress could win in the assembly elections, so did not see a reason to â€œwasteâ€ their votes). But his methodsâ€”poor public speaking, a failure to understand how particular castes and religious groups would act, weak connections to local organisersâ€”did not help. The main mistake, in retrospect, may have been that he invested so much of himself in that particular poll. But similar efforts, in Bihar and Kerala, in recent years, brought similar results.
Since the poll in UP Mr Gandhi has made little impact on Indian politics. That would change quickly if he is indeed promoted to a higher position and takes on a bigger role. But the growing impression of the manâ€”certainly the one promoted by Mrs Ramachandranâ€™s â€œDecoding Rahul Gandhiâ€â€”is of a figure so far ill-prepared to be a leading politician in India.
Just possibly, therefore, this is the moment for Congress to dare to think of something radical: of reorganising itself on the basis of policies, ideas and a vision for how India should develop, and not on a particular dynasty that seems, after various iterations, to be getting less and less useful. Mrs Ramachandranâ€™s book does not touch on this thought, but it is high time for the powerful within Congress to think about it.
Re: What is the point of Rahul Gandhi? : The Economist .
What is the point of Rahul Gandhi, asks Economist | Firstpost
Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi had famously said few years back that in his interactions with youth, he use to ask a simple question: â€œBade ho kar kya banana chahte ho? (where do you want to see yourself when grow up)â€. His idea behind asking this question to get a idea about how prepared young India was in its conviction about the future.
An article titled `The Rahul Problemâ€™ in The Economist raises the same question about the leader, who Congressâ€™s rank and file is looking at with unbridled hope. â€œWhat is the point of Rahul Gandhi?â€, the opening line of the article asks.
â€œThe suspicion is growing that Mr Gandhi himself does not knowâ€¦â€¦. Nobody really knows what he is capable of, nor what he wishes to do should he ever attain power and responsibility,â€ it further says.
The Economist piece, coming days after the Washington Post article on Manmohan Singh, will likely further embarrass the ruling Congress.
â€œPromoting Mr Gandhi now would in theory make sense for Congress. He has long been presumed the successor-in-waiting to Sonia Gandhi, his mother and the partyâ€™s president. He needs time to start showing some skills as a leader before campaigning starts in 2014. But he has long refused to take on a responsible position, preferring to work on reorganising Congressâ€™s youth wing, and leading regional election efforts, both with generally poor results. The problem is that Mr Gandhi has so far shown no particular aptitude as a politician, nor even sufficient hunger for the jobâ€ it says.
â€œMr Gandhi is an applicant for a big job: ultimately, to lead India. But whereas any other job applicant will at least offer minimal information about his qualifications, work experience, reasons for wanting a post, Mr Gandhi is so secretive and defensive that he wonâ€™t respond to the most basic queries about his studies abroad, his time working for a management consultancy in London, or what he hopes to do as a politicianâ€, the Economist says.
It says that Rahul with his intervention could have proved himself during the prolonged Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement and when Sonia Gandhi was abroad for medical treatment.
â€œInstead he flunked the test in hiding, not daring to speak out, other than in one ill-advised intervention in Parliamentâ€, the article says.
What is the point of Rahul Gandhi, asks The Economist - India Today
That means all is not well in the Gandhi family.The family matriach has not given a public appearance since her return on Sep 7th note that point
It looks like that the foreign media is pushing the the Gandhi dynasty (and the congress as a party) very hard to be more aggressive in Gujarat state elections.
Which will end up in favor of NaMo.
take it as.....
It looks like that the foreign media is pushing the the Gandhi dynasty (and the congress as a party) very hard to be more aggressive just before Gujarat state elections.
Which will end up in favor of NaMo.
Sir, I know you have a soft corner for Sachin Pilot, he comes across as a very sensible chap in the interviews that I have seen. Education definitely shows the results. He is an MBA from Wharton and has worked with BBC and with General Motors.
Recently he was inducted in the Territorial Army
I would also prefer him any day to Rahul Gandhi.
After JL Nehru, none of his descendants managed to complete university education successfully including Indira, Rajiv, Rahul.
Rather unlikely. If he had political acumen he would have shown it in the past 8 years. Narendra Modi was put in the hot seat as CM immediately after the Gujarat earthquake, faced another disaster in the form of Godhra and then riots, yet he has managed to make Gujarat the no 1 state despite non stop criticism and opposition to him from all quarters.
Politician But Different From Others................hai koi aisa
Ha...hostile college girls indeed...
Rahul Gandhi faces hostility from Amethi college girls
I have no soft corner for him.
I only find him having a say on policies and has his facts and figures up to date when debating issues.
And what is good about him is that he does not lose his cool.
He does not trot out inane political PC stuff to justify anything he says.
Renuka and Jayanti Natarajan and Horsey Singhvi do bank heavily on inane and mindless populism to justify the unjustifiable!
Now, that is what a Leader should be.
Rahul Gandhi believes it is wise not to have a view.
One has to know what a Leader feels about issues and is not solely impressed by a person having a meal or sleeping with the most backward classes. That is populism. What one wants to know is how he will ensure that these people have two square meals at least and a bed to sleep.
Separate names with a comma.