Dear reader, Another episode of the Congress-Prashant Kishor (PK) talks ended last week with PK refusing an invitation to join India's Grand Old Party. The Congress, after extended brainstorming sessions, had set up a panel to discuss PK's prescription to rejuvenate the ailing outfit and invited him to join the show. It is remarkable that the 137-year-old Congress took the help of a poll strategist, who advises party leaders and plans their campaigns for a fee, to figure out what has caused its decline. What is interesting, however, is that the discussions between PK and the Congress went beyond consultations on electoral strategies to discussions on inducting him into a formal role in the party organisation. That's unusual, though PK had once joined Nitish Kumar's Janata Dal (United) only to leave a few months later. Clearly, PK is more open to joining a party than remaining a professional consultant, an event manager for political parties, the event being elections. His notion of a political party seems to be that of a corporate entity with a CEO, which he can join as a lateral entrant and reshape according to his vision. While most political parties, including those that emerged out of social movements with clear political ideologies, have become family enterprises run as per the wishes of a patriarch or matriarch, are they amenable to being run by lateral entrants? What does such a line of thought say about the party? These are the questions that Suhas Palshikar explores in his article ('To PK or not to PK', April 30). Palshikar writes that "for a party that is on the back foot, spurning the offer of PK's services was a bold move". According to Palshikar, the Congress response to PK was shaped by two factors: One, the baggage of being the oldest party and; two, the self-perception of being the only all-India alternative to the BJP. Also, PK sought an organisational role that would have given him a stature comparable to that of the Gandhis (Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka). Even if the Gandhis were reconciled to this demand, the next layer of leadership would have deemed it unacceptable. The PK episode is to be taken seriously because the party had been all this while failing to act on its own to stall the decline. For Palshikar, the decline of the Congress at this moment is not merely a crisis of that party but "about the survival of competitive politics and the centrist space that allows the slow but sure march of democracy". The centrist space or the Congress space, according to Palshikar, "is marked by the centrist and non-sectarian tendencies in our public life". He adds, "The failure of the Congress party to own this space has already meant that it either gets disintegrated or is occupied by disparate state-level forces, many of which may eventually be steamrolled by the now-dominant BJP". This is the context of the PK-Congress dialogue, for Palshikar. While he accepts that the presence of consultants such as PK has become a common feature in politics - a sign of "the professionalisation of politics" and in itself an "an attractive path" - "what happens when a professional strategist crosses the threshold and seeks to become a political actor" is an intriguing thought. Palshikar writes: "In the role as a consultant, we know the 'commodity' called PK but we do not know him as a leader: What are his ideological inclinations? What policies would he prefer for his voters? Does he look upon people as supporters, stakeholders, citizens or just as voters? For that matter, how does a political consultant look upon politicians? Are they merely carriers of the brand or are they human agents negotiating alternative political routes, with dreams of their own? Finally, can a party be rejuvenated by the intervention of a consultant-turned-professional? Does it not require the motivation and human agency of its active workers? Or, are parties set to turn into electoral machines alone?" These questions need to be discussed. The PK-Congress dialogue is unlikely to be the last of its kind. Increasingly, party chiefs trust the likes of PK, who have no stake in the organisation, than a non-family second-in-command, to plot election campaigns. Even cadre outfits seem to believe that elections are about image building and the projection of strong leaders rather than ideas and ideologies. One cannot blame the likes of PK if they start wondering why they must always stay in the shadows and help someone else enjoy the fruits of their cleverness. Why not, instead, join the race and seek the prize for oneself? This may be delusional since successful parties are not just about leaders - though the latter would want the world to think so - but about cadre work, public outreach, ideology and programmes. This is how the Congress emerged and survived as the party of government for many years; the BJP's record is not very different. Rekha Sharma, a retired judge of the Delhi High Court, writes on the Supreme Court's intervention in the Lakhimpur Kheri case ('Justice for the Silenced', April 27). The apex court had cancelled the bail of Ashish Mishra, son of Ajay Mishra Teni, a minister of state for home affairs in the Union cabinet. Ashish Mishra and his aides had allegedly driven an SUV, with two other vehicles in tow, into a group of farmers in Lakhimpur Kheri district in UP during protests against the three farm laws and allegedly opened gunfire from inside his vehicle. Four farmers and one journalist had died in the incident, while the driver of the SUV and two others were killed in the clash that followed. Justice Sharma writes that the SC's action and the consequent surrender of Mishra before a local court "have not only served the cause of justice but also given confidence to the victims that their voices will not be silenced as was done by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court". The apex court upheld the principle that "a victim has an unbridled participatory right, from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings, and that such a right is substantive, enforceable and another facet of human rights," and "expressed its disquiet over the manner in which the high court failed to acknowledge the right of the victims to be heard", Justice Sharma writes. Vibhuti Narain Rai ('The return of instant justice', April 29) and Sanjay Srivastava ('A food cart in Jahangirpuri', April 27) write on the sanctity of due process and how prejudiced state action threatens it. Ameeta Mulla Wattal ('A time to revisit the school', April 28) makes a passionate plea to the state to rescue public schooling. Mrinal Kaul ('The one nation, one language fallacy', April 30), Khinvraj Jangid ('Sangam in Tel Aviv', April 30) and Chapal Mehra ('Faiz is in the room', April 28) write on cultural bonds and fault lines that were in the headlines in the past few days. Thank you, Amrith Lal The writer is a Senior Associate Editor with the Indian Express Opinion pages and writes on politics, public affairs and culture | 
No comments:
Post a Comment