Opinion Recalling Indira

But those silly stories aren’t quite the myths that the rest of us hear. We hear about how she is missed — because she was an iron-willed leader,wasn’t she? Untroubled by doubt in victory,unbowed even in defeat,and weren’t children named for her across the world? How many Croatian babies have been named Atal,or Kazakhs named Manmohan? And if she made mistakes,they were similarly monumental — but don’t really tarnish the idea of Indira.

So the strangling licence-permit raj which she nourished,and fed,and defended,and that she above all others was most responsible for,has its villains,but they don’t include her. Instead we hate the avaricious mid-level neta,the tyrannical petty bureaucrat.

That is sadly so often the way that leaders of a certain stamp are remembered. For the leadership they provided,regardless of where they were leading us.

But surely those whose job it is to evaluate policy would do better? Unfortunately the Congress party,in particular,seems always looking over its shoulder,still fearful of unguarded words carrying back to 1,Safdarjung Road. Any honesty about Mrs Gandhi from within it is so rare and so heavily bedecked with moderating adjectives and extenuating circumstances that it is barely recognisable.

Why so? It might be tempting to ascribe it to Dynasty,which can generally serve for the intellectually lazy as a catch-all reason for anything ailing India’s politics. After all,some younger Congressman vouchsafed a moment of clarity might well hesitate to interrupt the endless monotonous hymns of praise to say,wait a minute,she hindered more than she helped,for that could sound like lèse-majesté,treasonous almost,an attack on today’s leaders by implication.

But it is more than just that. Other leaders in other democracies too cast shadows that are longer than they should be. Reagan-worship in the Republican Party in America is far more intense than among those that party is soliciting for votes,for example. The simple explanation is that any party’s leaders of today are from the generation inspired into politics by the leader of a generation ago; her hold on them is correspondingly greater. Here,as in so many ways,the generation gap,in India in particular,between the political class and those they govern is telling.

The gap leads them into two confusions. First,they confuse her surviving with her success. The story of Congress from 1966 on is one of fragmentation and failure. She lost state-level leaders,hollowed out the local-level party and the election to lead the Congress Parliamentary Party she won was the last meaningful one the national party has seen. She had two great electoral successes: one after she ran a campaign cynically promising the end of poverty,storing up all sorts of trouble for later; and one after a non-Congress government that couldn’t govern. Neither is a circumstance likely,hopefully,to be repeated. Yet for the Congress’s leaders,those were the glory years,the years of dominance,and have taken on a sheen that those who didn’t live through them can’t quite seem to see. The Congress’s recovery from its Kesri-era meltdown has been compared to Indira Gandhi’s many comebacks,but in fact it is a tremendously greater achievement.

Second,they confuse her policies with her personality. Her concern for India’s poorest may have been manifest in her behaviour; but there isn’t an economist of worth who won’t tell you that more garibi would have been hataoed if the relaxation of the ’80s had started 10 years earlier. And most Congressmen under forty would think that,too — silently.

Those who are steering the party’s (only apparently rudderless) slide towards what it was 25 years ago — dominant,yes,but unstable,hollow and standing on the brink of disaster — should take a closer look at how the rest of us actually see her.

On a late October afternoon,walking through the house where Mrs Gandhi lived and died,talking to people from across India on the republican tirth-yatra to Rajghat,India Gate,and Safdarjung Road,you can catch the faintest glimmer of that. We may sense,intellectually,that she fits all sorts of heroic,even divine archetypes; but even so that doesn’t prepare one for the quiet reverence with which the martyred leader is talked about and her relics viewed. And,like everywhere else in India,the average age of the crowd is in the mid-20s. But they aren’t dressed austerely at all. They step aside from queues to talk on flashy late-model mobile phones. A couple of them talk about how long it took them to get there — and the inefficiencies of the Delhi bus service. Not resignedly,but angrily,as if they expect better,for things to change.

The Indian National Congress may want to become Congress (Indira) again. But those pilgrims to Safdarjung will not take Indira’s policies any more. (Nor will they have patience for new ones with the same controlling,statist,dirigiste feel.) And they won’t blame Indira if such are inflicted on them. They will blame today’s Congress,and say again,unfairly,that it is led by people that are pygmies compared to Indira.

So which young party member will be the first to stand up and say it? To say: I believe in the Congress party; but Mrs Gandhi’s stewardship,on the whole,did more harm than good. Her life was lived in vain if we don’t learn from her mistakes as we admire her successes. Will anyone say that? Can anyone?

And if nobody can,will Mrs Gandhi wound her party again,25 years on?

mihir.sharma@expressindia.com