The celebrations over Rahul Gandhi’s emergence from the political chrysalis at the fag-end of his first year as Opposition leader, however, reveal more about the nature of Indian politics than Rahul himself.

In the manner of the legendary boxer Muhammad Ali, Rahul Gandhi these days appears to fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee. The celebrations over Rahul Gandhi’s emergence from the political chrysalis at the fag-end of his first year as Opposition leader, however, reveal more about the nature of Indian politics than Rahul himself.

PRS Legislative Research data reveals his performance in Parliament would have been below average but for his robust participation in the concluding weeks of the last session. The PRS website shows Rahul had a 52 percent attendance against the average of MPs clocking 85 percent. It’s from the winter session, that his attendance – and interest – flagged, notching just 45 percent, which went down to 31 percent in the 2015 Budget session. This is understandable because he wasn’t in the city for 56 days.

Worse, he asked no question in the Lok Sabha, as against the average of 69 questions every MP asked. He participated in parliamentary debates only six times, against the average of 17.8 per cent. Interestingly, five of these six interventions in debates were between 20 April, 2015 and 12 May, 2015. This suggests he has overcome his listlessness or whatever other factors that were deterring him from speaking out.

From Rahul’s report of his first year as Opposition leader, it is impossible to predict the trajectory he is likely to take over the next four years. The late burst of energy he displayed could be temporary in nature. We do not know what explains his mood swing – whether it is innate to him or because the Lok Sabha debacle psychologically impaired him. In case it is the second factor, his performance in April-end and May should give the Congress followers a reason to hope.

However, to his credit, Rahul does possess ideological consistency. Before the 2014 general election as now, his criticism of Modi has been broadly from what is called the left-of-centre perspective. He has been taking potshots against Modi for favouring big industrialists, his indifference towards the plight of farmers, not reining in the RSS hotheads insistent on driving a wedge between the communities, and for ignoring the poor.

These elements constituted his campaign speeches last year as well. Here are some examples to illustrate the point. On 9 April 2014, he said in Assam, "In Gujarat, the poor cannot dream. It is only the rich who can dream but for Congress, every individual has the right to dream."

On 25 February 2014, he said in Dehradun, "The 70 crore people who work in factories, who work as carpenters, we want that these 70 crore people should be brought in middle class." On 8 February 2014, he said at Bardoli, Gujarat, "We say we want to remove poverty, the Opposition wants to remove the poor." He also said there, "It is the Congress party that introduced the Land Acquisition Bill and waived off the debts of poor farmers." At several other rallies, he spoke of the Modi government of Gujarat evicting farmers from their land and handing it over to industrialists at cheap rates, subtly warning them that this would be his policy in case he were to become Prime Minister.

It is, therefore, a tad bewildering why analysts have been lavishing praises on Rahul for finding his voice and spunk. Why weren’t his speeches of last year, as passionate as these are today, appreciated then?

The answer: the nature of Indian politics, which possesses certain peculiar traits.

One, a leader is believed only if he has moral credibility. This the UPA II forfeited because of the scams. Though Rahul wasn’t a member of the UPA government he suffered, quite understandably, because the Gandhis controlled the government. A government may have many achievements to its credit, but it can’t sweep to power in case it is popularly perceived to be morally bankrupt.

Two, people have the ability to read the ideological orientation of each party, but some leaders are seen to transcend the same. Talk to voters, whether in cities or villages, and you will have them identity the BJP as an urban, pro-rich (or pro-industrialist) party.

By contrast, the Congress is considered more sensitive to the poor. Yet, occasionally, a charismatic personality emerges who is believed to have the capacity to overcome the ideological divide. Modi is indeed such a leader – and nobody consequently took Rahul’s warnings seriously.

Three, it is futile to rail against popular conviction. The people didn’t take Rahul seriously because they were convinced Modi was most suited to lead India. Against such convictions, regardless of the evidence an Opposition leader offers to the contrary, he is listened to but dismissed summarily. In fact, many during the 2014 elections thought Rahul was disparaging them through his trenchant criticism of Modi.



Four, without proof, people don’t lose faith in a charismatic leader. Rahul’s criticism has acquired new salience because Modi, in the popular consciousness, is proving him right. For instance, his accusation of the BJP’s indifference to farmers doesn’t sound hollow because of Modi’s land ordinance. His aversion to transparency is evident from the delay in appointing Information Commissioners. The charge that the BJP pits communities against each other is borne by ghar wapsi, love jihad and attacks on churches. Rahul’s claim that Gujarat was a one-man show, made at several rallies last year, is too evident in Delhi today.

Fifth, the Indian media instinctively recoil, and shudder, at the thought of a rudderless, weak opposition pitched against a government commanding more than functional majority, which the Modi sarkar enjoys. This is perhaps the reason why they have been over-enthusiastic in their assessment of Rahul on his return, hailing him for his biting, scathing remarks. No longer do comments declaring him as a shahzada or dynast or the privileged make headlines. To an extent, Rahul as doughty Opposition leader is a creation of the media.

This could also be, as a friend suggests, because TV news makes for a riveting show when two leaders are sniping at each other. Before the 2014 elections, Modi kept firing at Rahul – and the media amplified it to create spectacular viewing. As Prime Minister, Modi can’t still behave as an Opposition leader and take swipes at Rahul, whose silence was turning the TV news shows into boring analyses of policies and predictable secular-communal issues. For high TRP ratings, the media may have built Rahul into an effective, snarling opponent.

But for the Congress to reap tangible gains from Rahul, for him to be accepted as an effective leader, he must show he can turn his rage into votes, translate goodwill into electoral victory. But in which states can he lead his party to power? Well, your guess is as good as mine.

(Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, published by HarperCollins, is available in bookstores.)