The Congress party has made some ‘sacrifices’ in its quest to oust the Modi-led government in the coming Lok Sabha elections. These sacrifices, the party has repeatedly claimed, have been done with the lofty purposes of “saving democracy”, “protecting the interests of youths and farmers” and, “ensuring communal harmony”, among others.
It agreed to contest just 17 of the 80 seats in Uttar Pradesh, leaving the rest to its ally, the Samajwadi Party. It’s a state that had been the Congress’ political backyard for decades since independence and one that holds the potential to make or mar the prospects of parties that aspire to form national governments.
In Delhi, which the Congress had ruled for many years, it accepted three of the seven seats on offer, conceding four to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), an outfit that had called for the recall of Bharat Ratna given to Rajiv Gandhi, and demanded the arrest of Sonia Gandhi.
And in Gujarat, in order to seal the pact in Delhi, the Congress party agreed to let the AAP contest two constituencies, including Bharuch, which is a legacy seat of Ahmed Patel, one of its stalwarts and former political secretary to the party supremo, Sonia Gandhi. In doing so, it ignored the sentiments of Ahmed Patel’s family members; the late leader’s son, Faisal Patel, has expressed his anguish and anger.
It may be recalled that, months ago, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had expressed the imperative for his party to be ready for sacrifices in order to make the mission of the Opposition bloc, grandly named INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance), a success. Among its constituents, the Congress has the largest number of Lok Sabha seats.
One of the definitions given for ‘sacrifice’ in the Oxford Dictionary of English, is the following: An act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.
Let us consider what is so valued that the Congress party has given up.
In Uttar Pradesh, at least in electoral terms—and that’s what is relevant in the present context—the party is a non-entity and has nothing of value to cast aside. It has just two members in the 403-member strong Assembly and only one Member of Parliament. In other words, the party has virtually nothing to sacrifice there. In an earlier Assembly election, it had teamed up with the Samajwadi Party and still the combination lost, with the Congress bringing nothing to the table. In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, its supreme leader Rahul Gandhi lost from the family bastion of Amethi.
The situation is not very different in Delhi; indeed, it’s worse. The Congress has zero MLAs and zero MPs from here and hopes to ride piggyback on AAP to open its account in the Lok Sabha. It’s down on its knees, and yet it talks of making sacrifices!
As for Gujarat, it is one state where the Congress has traditionally been in a direct contest with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and has for the last quarter of a century, failed to defeat it. Giving the Bharuch seat to AAP was, therefore, no sacrifice.
That said, it is true that the Congress has made sacrifices in the past. It would be interesting to revisit two of them and evaluate the outcome. Both these examples, incidentally, relate to Jammu and Kashmir.
In 1975, only three months before the Emergency was imposed, an agreement was inked between the Government of India headed by Indira Gandhi and the local satrap, Sheikh Abdullah. Known as the Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Abdullah Accord, it was signed by diplomat, G. Parthasarathy (on behalf of the Union government) and by Mirza Afzal Beg (on Sheikh’s behalf). Among other things, it paved the way for the return of Sheikh Abdullah to power. Indira Gandhi sacrificed the Congress government, then led by Syed Mir Qasim, to clear the path for Sheikh Abdullah’s ascension.
Indira Gandhi’s reported explanation for the largesse was that it would send a positive signal to the world, especially the Islamic nations and that it would herald an era of political stability in Jammu and Kashmir. What actually happened was an erosion of the base of the Congress party. Not only that, after Mir Qasim, who had been made the scapegoat, was adjusted in the Union ministry, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed became the party unit’s chief and internal rumblings erupted, resulting in a vertical split in the Congress party. Taken together, Indira Gandhi’s decision to sacrifice the party’s interests and humour Sheikh Abdullah worked against the Congress.
The second sacrifice came less than three decades later. In the 2002 elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, the Congress party won the second largest number of seats, 20 (the single largest party was the National Conference, which showed no inclination to form a government). Ghulam Nabi Azad, who had helmed the Congress party’s campaign and was the chief ministerial face, secured the support of independent MLAs and a few from other, smaller parties. The numbers added up to a simple majority. All that Azad had to do was to meet the governor and stake his claim.
But he first met Sayeed, who had quit the Congress and formed his own outfit, and in a sudden burst of generosity, invited him to be part of the government. Perhaps Azad believed that with Sayeed’s party included, the government would be seen as more inclusive and more stable. Sayeed agreed, but when he met Sonia Gandhi in Delhi for talks, he insisted on being made the chief minister, claiming that he had been given the impression that he would lead the government!
He gave indications that if his demand was not met, he could create problems for the incoming government. The Congress could have called his bluff, but it decided to sacrifice its interests and conceded to his demand. It was agreed that he would be chief minister for the first half of the term, and Azad for the latter half. After half the term ended, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed very reluctantly made way. Thereafter, he proceeded to repeatedly place obstacles after Azad took charge. Eventually, he withdrew support and the Azad government had to resign before completing its full term in 2008. The Congress party was left with an egg on its face.
If the party over time recovered from these setbacks, it was due to the strong leadership of Indira Gandhi, in the first case; and, in the second example, because the party was going through a golden phase (having come to power at the Centre only four years before). Such a happy condition for the Congress does not exist today.
Parties have risen from the dumps, but rarely have they done so by outsourcing their revival to their rivals.
It’s the strong that can sacrifice, the weak only surrender.
The writer is an author and a public affairs analyst. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment