The Sevagram conference showed deep ambivalence towards both the political realm and the emerging forms of governance. Vinoba and Kumarappa argued for the constructive programmes. For them the societal realm was primary. Their suspicion of the political ran deep. Pyarelal reminded the conference of the last will and testament of Gandhiji, where he had argued for creation of a Lok Seva Sangh, a non-political body that would replace the Congress. It was left to a sad, lonely and tired Nehru to provide an eloquent defence of the political realm.

He argued for the necessity of the political. He argued that the Congress had helped create the political realm. Political life, he said, cannot be simply brought to an end. The role of the Congress, he argued, would be to expand the scope of this realm, through governance and organic linkages with civil society organisations.

He also issued a warning to the Congress. The Congress had to govern, but that could not be the fundamental reason for its existence. The government, he said, had its own unique ways of solving issues, it also had its limits and restraints. He warned that mere power of the government was not enough. The government cannot, by its very nature, raise fundamental issues facing a society and a nation. The role of the Congress was, he said, to remain within politics — not necessarily within government — and raise and confront fundamental issues. Because, in politics one looks to the advantage of the moment. But an action that was informed by deeper understanding of the political realm would be framed differently. The action must be right in itself, whether it leads to an immediate advantage or not.

The ability of the Congress to discern the difference between forms of governance, political action and the larger role of occupying the political space has frayed. It sees itself as a body whose role should be to occupy the position of governance. It is true that one of the moving forces for a political party is the will to power. But to consider governmental power as an end in itself can be dangerous for a political organisation. It gives primacy to governance over the political thereby restricting the role of the political organisation. The party thus becomes an instrument of governance and not of confronting fundamental issues and setting the terms of political debate.

The response of the Congress to any of the fundamental issues — be it the Sethu Samudram Project, the question of civil nuclear energy, the condition of the Indian peasantry, the creation of SEZs and privatisation of resources — has been governmental rather than political. It sees filing of affidavits, creation of inquiry commissions, or the budget itself, as instruments of political action. This failure to distinguish between modes of governmental action and possible responses of a party apparatus is obvious.

The implications of this process on the party as an organisation run deep. The party is seen as a bureaucratic organisation. It sees politics and even elections essentially as a managerial problem, or worse a technocratic problem. Politics as a management exercise gives centrality to the ‘expert’ and not to the polis. It, in fact, shuts out the voice of the people or the ordinary, primary member of the party as ‘noise’ in the system. A managerial exercise is also an affirmation of the hierarchy. It also validates back-room politics as real politics. It thinks of acquisitions and mergers as robust forms of political alignment. Gujarat is a classic case in point. The Congress believed that by aligning itself with the rebels within the BJP it could defeat Modi. It surrendered to the new allies, allowing them to dictate even the choice of party candidates.

The Congress needs to re-think itself as a political party and not merely as an organisational structure. The first step would be to recognise the limitations of the governmental instruments and problem-solving management style.

The writer is a social scientist based in Ahmedabad