The Rahul Gandhi dilemma
Rahul Gandhi is still treated like royalty in the popular imagination - for the BJP this perception remains useful to exploit.
Imagine a world where a single man in his 50s can’t get a drink with a woman in a pub without causing a national scandal. If you’re struggling, I have good news - we don’t have to imagine it anymore. Last week a video surfaced of opposition politician Rahul Gandhi getting a drink at a pub in Kathmandu, which was gleefully tweeted by the BJP.
Since then, our news cycles have been inundated with opinion pieces, TV debates, and discussions on the “optics” of the member of parliament from Wayanad “partying” in Kathmandu when the nation is in dire straits. We’ve even been treated to some “national security” analysis based on the rather racist insinuation that the woman with Gandhi in the pub was the Chinese ambassador to Nepal (a claim since refuted by the owner of the pub) .
And as bizarre as this whole news cycle has been, it offers a great deal of insight into the position of the Gandhis in the Indian popular imagination and how that position is used by the BJP.
The treatment of the Gandhis both by their supporters and their opponents find very few parallels in Indian politics. Political dynasties are not rare in India or limited to the Congress - the Scindias, the Abdullahs, the Muftis, the Yadavs, the Badals and the Thackerays are all household names. And while the scions of these dynasties certainly face criticism, this scrutiny is rarely as personal or intimate as the sort faced by Rahul Gandhi. With Gandhi, everything, from a visit to an ailing grandmother to accompanying his mother for medical treatment, becomes national news. Everyone, it would seem, has an opinion on how many hours he should work, where he should vacation, who he should spend time with and how he should live his life. In a country where the Prime Minister has barely given a press conference in the eight years he has been in power, this obsession with a man who has never been in power is curious, to say the least. And while the political leanings of mainstream Indian media certainly play a role in this, this isn’t the whole story. Public intellectuals who have spoken against the BJP also tend to centre the Gandhi family in their discussions in a manner entirely disproportionate to Rahul Gandhi’s political performance so far. Writer Ram Guha went so far as to argue that the survival of the Congress party and the “revival of democracy” itself in India would require the Gandhis to retire from politics. This is a curious way to speak of a political opposition party. In tone, and in sheer drama, this is the argument that one would make for the abolition of a long established monarchy.
To understand this role played by Rahul Gandhi in the popular imagination, we need to step beyond Indian politics, and beyond electoral politics itself, and look at a different concept - royalty. I’ve written previously about the extraordinary resilience of the Windsors of the United Kingdom and the rather feudal loyalty they continue to inspire. And while history plays a role in this, British royals also maintain this loyalty by living in the public eye from the day they are born to the day they die. They are photographed as infants on the hospital steps in the arms of their parents; pictures of them are released on their birthdays; when they fall in love, they are tabloid fodder; and their weddings are always public “fairytales”. Even their grief is public — from the pictures of the young sons of Diana, Princess of Wales, following her coffin in a public funeral procession in 1997 to the pictures of Queen Elizabeth II sitting all alone at the funeral of her spouse, Prince Phillip, in the middle of 2021.
While this inclusion of the public in their most intimate or familial moments is the basis of their subjects’ continued support for them, it comes at a price. In a sense, they are effectively owned by the British public - from a skirt that blows up in the wind to the cost of a privately funded baby shower, no matter is too small for newspaper scrutiny or public brickbats. And while British royals certainly enjoy the benefits of being figureheads, they are also expected to take a beating in their role as figureheads. From protests on slavery reparations abroad to anger about British colonialism, they are expected to take criticism on behalf of the institution they represent.
In some senses, Rahul Gandhi and his sister Priyanka Gandhi Vadra occupy a similar position in Indian popular culture. Those old enough to remember have seen photographs of them as babies with their grandmother, Indira Gandhi, pictures of them as children growing up and photographs of them at the funeral of their father, Rajiv Gandhi. The public whether by accident or design has been included in their lives, and as a result feels entitled to an opinion on every aspect of it. And in some senses, they too are held responsible for the evils of their forebears’ rule. This imagination of them as de facto royalty isn’t just perpetuated by the BJP. Their own party’s almost blind defence of their role as leaders and Gandhis’ own “meet and greet” style of functioning with lots of hugs and handshakes is far more reminiscent of popular members of a royal family than any other successful Indian politician.
Unfortunately for the Gandhis, they are not hereditary monarchs. They have to win elections. And the popularity of royals and the electability of politicians are two very different things - as Rahul Gandhi has discovered repeatedly, charm, warmth and fame does not equal electability.
For the BJP, on the other hand, this perception of Rahul Gandhi as some sort of hereditary princeling has been useful to exploit. First, in the public imagination, the BJP has successfully created the impression of the Gandhis as long term incumbents and themselves as challengers to that power. Given that the height of Rahul Gandhi’s power has been as the leader of a party which hasn’t crossed triple digits in the Lok Sabha under his leadership, this narrative draws less on reality and more on the public imagination about the Gandhis. As long as this narrative holds, the BJP can continue to position themselves as challengers to this establishment rather than facing accountability as the ruling party.
Second, the public anger with scions of political dynasties being undeserving inheritors of power has also been easy to centre on the Gandhis. Despite the fact that the BJP has its own share of dynastic politicians, none of them have grown up in the public eye quite like the Gandhis and as a result are given a free pass.
Finally, the excessive focus on Rahul Gandhi the person allows the BJP to convert what is essentially a complex parliamentary contest between parties into a presidential style two person popularity battle - a strategy that has worked in their favour since 2014.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi are well liked. Their rallies draw huge crowds and people queue for selfies with them. And yet, this popularity is the sort enjoyed by royalty. People that queue up to shake their hands or take a selfie do not necessarily vote for them. And in the hands of their opponents, this popular imagination of them as de facto royalty becomes a lightening rod to conduct disgruntlement about inter-generational privilege .
For Rahul Gandhi, this is the ultimate paradox - the source of his fame is also the foundation for the disgruntlement with him. As this popularity does not seem to translate into electability, it is clear that he needs to transcend beyond this image to truly succeed in politics. Such transformations are not impossible. His own grandmother used the left of centre “gareebi hatao” to transcend from the pretty princess to a populist powerhouse. More recently MK Stalin has reinvented himself from the pampered son of Karunanidhi to a political force in his own right. But it remains to be seen whether Rahul Gandhi and his ardent followers will have the good sense to completely rework a feudal party culture that currently does no one but the BJP any favours.