But the deeper issue the episode raises is this. In the idioms of Indian politics, there is still far too much space occupied by the politics of good intentions and by an insistence on heartfelt gestures of solidarity. Some of this is warranted: we need a language and gestures to express the idea that someone cares. But often a lot of this politics exemplifies what Hazari Prasad Dwivedi once memorably described as “Jab dil bhara ho, aur dimag khali ho” politics. It is a huge distraction from thinking hard about the decisions that need to be taken; it infantilises voters, as if to suggest that what they need is some kind of comforting hug rather than rational policy.

Take one recent instance of a politics of this kind. Much is being made of the fact that Rahul Gandhi has been out to discover the rural poor, rejecting the temptations of ministerial work for grassroots politics. This is supposed to show that he is a man of the masses, hard at work in rural India, staying away from the glitterati of Mumbai and the chatterati of Delhi. There may be no doubt that his politics is well-intentioned, that he genuinely cares about the poor, and he seeks to be their leader rather than the leader of the privileged. But like Gopal Gandhi, he seems to have forgotten one key distinction. Standing with the people is not the same thing as standing for them. While the character and sentiments of the politician may matter, it is the consequences of their actions that matter more. This is why the kind of legitimacy Rahul Gandhi is seeking to carve for himself is so ineffective and possibly pernicious. It wants to wear the mantle of innocence, unsullied by the temptations and responsibility of exercising policy choices, as far as possible. In doing so it invites the charge of hypocrisy.

... contd.