Trust the irrepressible Digvijaya Singh not to stay silent in the face of provocation. One is not sure whether Narendra Modi’s speech at Hyderabad qualifies as provocation, but the Congress general secretary was quick to slam everything about it - the Rs 5 ‘registration’ fee, the speech itself, particularly the Obamasque ‘Yes, we can’ bit, and the failure of Modi to ensure victory for the BJP’s candidates whenever he campaigned for them (outside Gujarat).

But let’s ignore Digvijaya; we know he is incorrigible.

But let’s be thankful to the motormouth. It is because of him that we know the Congress, a political oufit with its origins in the 19th century, is still alive and kicking. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who leads the Congress led government at the Centre, firmly believes that silence is golden, Congress chief Sonia Gandhi hardly opens up and vice-president Rahul Gandhi, the elusive and secretive politician, is still a mystery wrapped in a puzzle.

When the rest of the party speaks, it is usually at cross-purposes, making little sense. Digvijaya makes up for all of them. He might talk rubbish often, but he makes others aware that the party has a voice.

It’s intriguing that all top leaders of the party would stop speaking to people on important matters altogether. Rahul Gandhi, in particular, is a huge disappointment. It’s obvious that he is not keen on the prime minister’s job - whether he is capable is another question altogether - but as the de facto leader of the party he is expected to be its face and articulate its position on several matters. He has shown no inclination to do so. A leader, put in simple words, cannot be a backroom boy forever.

The indiscreet way several senior party leaders have been speaking in public - Beni Prasad Verma is an example - reveals he is yet to establish his authority over them.

With the leaders silent, Digvijaya has become the voice of the Congress by default. Actually, he is the person fire-fighting for the party. It’s a job Rahul Gandhi should be doing.

What’s wrong with the Congress?

It is difficult to put a finger on exactly what. It could be experiencing the problem of political parties turning into lead-footed bureaucracies after staying in office for too long. The leaders take power for granted and self-preservation, as is the case with seasoned bureaucrats, becomes their primary instinct. They try to survive through manipulation rather than bold action and seek to eliminate competition through skullduggery.

They keep a distance from the masses and when the real challenge arrives, in the form of a bold rival to power, they just collapse. The case of the Congress in several big states is a pointer. In many of them, where it used to be strong, the party is not even a position to find its feet.

The weight of the bureaucratic culture manages to muffle voices too. The problem, of course, begins right at the top. It started during Indira Gandhi who, troubled by the challenge to her position from strong leaders from party units in states in the late 60s, sought to make them powerless. As ‘loyalists’ were foisted on party units, undercutting genuine mass leaders, the centre grew in power. But it had a long-term adverse consequence for the party down the rungs. It was left with no strong mass leaders in several electorally important states - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal to name a few. The problem lingers.

Rahul Gandhi’s efforts at rebuilding the organisation have not quite resulted in the emergence of new leaders in states. So what is he up to?

Frankly, we have no clue. The Gandhi family name is no longer the vote magnet it was. The only role the Gandhis play now is to keep the party together. Rahul is aware of that. That is the reason he is investing effort in rebuilding the organisation. But does it help the grassroots workers and leaders when the big leaders have nothing specific to say on anything?

How do they communicate the party’s line to people in the absence of that?

You cannot be a leader and silent at the same time. Digvijaya might have a comment on that.