It is the misfortune of Congress that today everyone is telling its shortcomings, no one is suggesting reforms. It is also unfortunate that people are either standing in total opposition to the Congress or in total support. The space for rational thought on the position of the Congress has run out. When Ghulam Nabi Azad also left the Congress, he wrote a five-page letter and told the shortcomings of the Congress. He did not offer any solution, even though he has been associated with the Congress for five decades and worked with two of the most charismatic Congress leaders – Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. Even before this, the Congress leaders who left the party only expressed their anger towards the party leadership and told how much they have done for the party. Everyone without exception said that the party is continuously losing elections. But losing the election is a crime, just like winning the election is not the meaning of politics. Therefore, losing an election to a party may not be a sufficient reason to leave it.
Surprisingly, Congress leaders are leaving the party by giving an example of party losing elections and this is being justified in discussions ranging from media to ordinary citizens. Ghulam Nabi Azad also said that the Congress has lost two Lok Sabha and 39 assembly elections in the last eight years. If the party is continuously losing elections, will they leave the party? He did not consider it necessary to look around himself that how many parties are continuously losing elections, yet their leaders are not leaving the party.
The country’s communist parties must have lost hundreds of elections. After making a historic performance in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, their seats are continuously decreasing and one by one the party has been out of power in the states. Still, it was not heard anywhere that its leaders were leaving the party. If there are a few exceptions, that is a different matter. Bharatiya Jana Sangh and BJP have been losing elections continuously. The BJP was formed in 1980 and in the next Lok Sabha elections, it could win only two seats. Despite this, its leaders were not running away from the party. They were looking for a way to win the election.
If you want to see another example, you can look at the Labor Party of Britain. The Labor Party has been in opposition since 2010. She has been losing elections for the last 12 years. Prior to that, she was in government from 1997 to 2010 but before that from 1979 to 1997, the party was in opposition. In 1994, Tony Blair gave the slogan of New Labor and by reshaping the principles of his party according to the times, went to the public and the Labor Party came to power in 1997. When the Labor Party was in power for 13 years, neither the leaders of the Conservative Party were leaving the party by beating their chest over the electoral defeat, nor now that the Labor Party is out of power for the last 12 years, its leaders are leaving the party with chest thumping. This phenomenon is seen only in the oldest party of the ‘world’s largest democracy’. The party is not out of power that the leaders start leaving the party while doing the work. Obviously they have nothing to do with the principles, policies or history of the party. His own interest is above all and he takes no time to decide to leave the party when it seems that the party or its current leadership is not capable of fulfilling his interests.
Ghulam Nabi Azad is also one of those leaders who gave priority to his personal interest over loyalty and ideological commitment. He told all the shortcomings of that family, by circumambulating which he has achieved all the achievements of his life. But the five-page letter did not raise any ideological question. He has not accused the Congress of ideological deviation or compromising on principles.
He also did not tell that what is lacking in the politics that Congress is doing now? Has the Congress abandoned socialist economic policies, the principle of harmony and the idea of secularism? Has the Congress made any compromise with its traditional values? Is Rahul Gandhi not opposing the anti-people policies of the Centre? Is the Congress party not standing against communal and divisive policies? They should have told where they stand in these matters or regarding these policies! Congress opposed the release of rape convicts from Bilkis Bano but what did Ghulam Nabi Azad himself do?
The reality is that Azad has no ideological commitment of his own. He has described such problems within the Congress, which cannot be considered as a problem from the perspective of Indian politics. Except communist parties, all other parties have the same system of decision making, which is in the Congress and the way of doing politics is the same as the Congress is doing. Even in BJP, decisions are not taken in the National Executive or in the Parliamentary Board.
Even there the decision is now taken by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah and earlier used by Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani. BJP also fights elections on the face of individuals and their personal charisma. Even though RSS volunteers work at the grassroots level, the tradition of doing politics and contesting elections, which started in the 1980s with the face of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, continues till date. So if individualism is an evil, it is not only of the Congress party, but of all parties.
So, it would have been better if Ghulam Nabi would have challenged the leadership of the Nehru-Gandhi family by staying in the Azad Party. One of his fellow leaders Manish Tewari has said that he is a partner in the Congress, not a tenant. If Azad also considered himself a partner, Sharad Pawar also considered himself a partner, Mamta Banerjee also considered himself a stake, then all these people would have tried to overcome its shortcomings by staying inside the party instead of leaving the Congress. Challenging the supremacy of the Nehru-Gandhi family. But one by one everyone chose to part ways. Everyone parted saying that the Congress was being ruined.
But think, if all the leaders like Sharad Pawar, Mamta Banerjee, Jagan Mohan Reddy had remained in the Congress, would the Congress have reached the present point of destruction? The Congress leadership may have made mistakes in this, but those who left did the most damage. Azad has also done the same work. He did not suggest any solution, on the contrary, he further defame the Congress party in the eyes of the people. Throw mud at its leaders. The damage caused to the Congress by this is in its place, but Azad’s own character was more exposed.
