Does Congress need better treatment in media?

The media has largely failed to put into perspective the recent happenings in the Congress party. The changes the party has made in its ideology and organisation are not only important for the party but also have bearing on democracy in India. They should also be discussed for the reason that the Gandhi family has given command of the organisation to a non-Gandhi leader. Is it not required that Sonia Gandhi's democratic handling of crises should be discussed properly as it could be a lesson to other leaders? Does the election of Kharge to the post of party president not require a fair assessment in terms of its ideological and social impacts?

Only a few months ago, stability in Congress was elusive. Rahul Gandhi was on the Bharat Jodo Yatra and the party was spending its entire energy on streamlining the Yatra. It coincided with the exit of senior leader Ghulam Nabi Azad from the party. He was spitting venom with the intention of harming the party in every possible way. His remaining partners in the group of 23 were busy articulating their further opposition to the leadership. In this atmosphere, Sonia Gandhi was trying to stitch the party organisation together and find a loyal Congressman for the post of its president.

The selection of a suitable person was the key to saving the party. This was not only essential for preparing the party for upcoming state elections and the 2024 challenge, but also necessary to save the morale of the party. But selection did not prove to be that easy. She wanted to hand over command of the organisation to a trusted Congressman and selected Ashok Gehlot, who did not want to leave Rajasthan and was not ready to give up the post of Chief Minister. He even went to an extent of bringing the party to the brink of a split. The situation of hopelessness and despair demanded a harsh decision. However, she chose a different course and stuck to the democratic way to resolve the crisis. She maintained her cool despite provocations from the media and the BJP.

Amid the BJP's chanting that the Congress should first get its house in order, then think of uniting the country, she opted to go slow on rebellion. The wisdom shown by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in handling recent crises in the party, including the rebellion of old guards, not only displays their confidence but also their commitment to democratic principles. Is this not important in the scenario where the ruling party is deliberately disregarding democratic norms and most of the parties show a complete lack of internal democracy?

And, probably, the adherence to democratic principles has saved the party from an imminent disaster in Rajasthan. Though the leadership has successfully rescued the State party from a major crisis, the challenges are still there. Gehlot seems to have failed to see into the future. He is underestimating Sachin Pilot's capacity to harm the party in elections that are scheduled next year. Pilot is young and dynamic. He can capture the imagination of young voters. Moreover, he proved his mettle in the last assembly elections.

If political developments in Rajasthan had affected Bharat Jodo Yatra, it would have also derailed the election of the party president. Sonia Gandhi had to select a new candidate. It was not easy, but her insight helped her. Many people are questioning the selection on the ground that he is too old to take up the challenge and he is not as dynamic as many other leaders in the party, including Shashi Tharoor, who contested against him. People are also pointing to the fact that he may not be able to enthuse the party in north India, the area that decides who will take charge at the center.

Only time can say whether Kharge will prove an asset or a liability for the party. But Sonia Gandhi must be commended for efficiently conducting the election of the party president. She not only allowed Tharoor to contest but also overlooked Tharoor's making the internal election a disproportionately publicized affair. It is clear that Tharoor is trying to project himself as the next prime ministerial candidate. How can a candidate in an internal election talk about his separate policies and agenda? His campaign also showed the ideological battle in Congress.

If Tharoor showed his preference for pro-privatisation and pro-corporate policies, Kharge made it clear that he favours Nehruvian ideas of promoting the public sector. It is interesting to speculate that Sonia and Rahul preferred Kharge for one important reason: he is a Nehruvian. This is a major shift and points to the changing ideology of the party. It is clear that Gehlot was selected as a candidate for the same reason.

This is an irony that Kharge is being evaluated on the grounds that are apolitical and non-ideological. The media has been talking about whether he would be taking independent decisions. This question is being asked to denigrate the president of Congress. Can they ask the same question to the BJP or any other party? Did anyone discuss how JP Nadda got his term extended? Can Nadda decide anything on his own? Has Nadda taken any independent stance on policies?

If we evaluate Kharge in the backdrop of these questions, we can get some striking insights into the changes Congress is undergoing. This may not interest the Indian media, which has become rigid in its structure and functioning. Parties with a sizeable presence in assemblies and parliament do not get space in the media because they are opposed to the ruling party, and leaders without any base are highlighted as their presence benefits the ruling party. If Sonia Gandhi's efficient handling should have been properly discussed, Kharge's political ideology and his social background demanded a better presence in the media. Unfortunately, it was not there.

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)