I am ready, said Rahul Gandhi . But is India ready for him? The answer is not a straightforward yes or no. Shades of grey mark the political landscape in India, till they give abrupt way to patches of brilliant colour. In 2004, few expected the BJP-led NDA to lose. India was beginning to shine, yet the party that hoped to ride that glow to power lost.The identity of the Congress president had little to do with it. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s personality was not to blame for his party’s loss. Personality matters in politics, but only up to a point. People’s perception of where their nation is headed is decisive, and beyond a point they cannot be taken in by charisma or promises.Rahul’s speech at Berkeley was not a great one — he even managed to get the number of official languages India has wrong — but it was a competent speech, without major gaffes.Sure, parts of it were facile: in particular, the glossing over of the violence that has attended India’s journey since Independence, particularly in peripheral states, its tribal areas and along the faultlines of communal and caste hostility.Parts of it were woolly. When Rahul suggested that India’s prosperity depends on myriad small and medium industries, and not on the 100 large firms that he said dominate the system, he seemed not to understand the interconnections between big and small firms: that giant petrochemical industries produce the stuff that powerlooms weave into cheap clothing, that assembly lines of cars depend on small vendors of parts, that five-star hotels generate jobs for craftsmen via their well-heeled visitors.But parts of it were spot on. Rahul saw globalisation as enriching the poor, saw a Congress government’s job as empowering the poor to become nodes of globalised economy. This is a welcome departure from the past when he promised the poor that a Congress government would give them dollops of good things. Empowerment, not patronage, is what people seek.The part of the Berkeley event that generated the most interest was Rahul’s comments on dynasty. He was not alone, he said, and named politicians and film stars who come from families that had found success. This is how things are in India, he said.This, again, marks a pragmatic departure from the past, when he sought to defend his flawed attempt to strengthen inner-party democracy by citing his desire to use his dynastic power to end the dynastic culture altogether.A failed dynast, a disgrace — that is how he was called afterwards. This goes down well with democratic indignation at the idea of family rule, but lacks analytic rigour. A political family in a competitive democracy is very different from rule by a royal family.In a democracy, people have to vote their leaders to office. Being a revered leader’s son or daughter certainly gives some initial advantage. But after that, it is up to the son or daughter to prove his/her mettle. Indira Gandhi proved hers. Rajiv Gandhi did not. Being a Gandhi did not prevent his rout in 1989. If PV Narasimha Rao had allied with the DMK, rather than with the AIADMK, in 1996, he would have formed the next government as well, and the party would not have had to bring another Gandhi to lead it out of defeat and despond.The people of India elected Sonia Gandhi-led Congress to power, twice. They rejected the Congress in 2014. People are the masters of their political destiny, not family lineage. This is what differentiates a political family from a dynasty proper. This is why the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons are political families and not dynasties.Rahul acted as an inner-party dynast when he sought to impose his finds out of the blue as leaders of party units in the states. Now, he accepts his job is to strike the right balance among the party’s million claimants to leadership, and that he needs the help and advice of the old guard to do that.If the Congress finds it convenient to use the Gandhis to unify the party before the next elections, it is entitled to. Being a Gandhi should not disqualify Rahul for leadership.The sheer number of Rahul Gandhi jokes and Pappu videos on social media stand testimony to the BJP’s appreciation of Gandhi’s ability to bring the Congress together. Hence the concerted ridicule. The charge of being a dynast is the least of Rahul Gandhi’s challenges.