The Prince and The President

Barack Obama’s political persona and career have many vital cues for India’s Prime Minister-in-waiting

In a 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention that brought him into national focus in the US, Barack Obama said, “My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father—my grandfather—was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.” The hut that Obama describes is the kind Rahul Gandhi has only recently acquainted himself with, in his unending quest to familiarise himself with the poor. In contrast to Obama, Rahul Gandhi is heir to the most powerful political dynasty in the world; for five generations, the Nehru-Gandhis have been to the manor born. But, however different their backgrounds, the two embody similar hopes and aspirations in their respective countries. For a large number of people, especially the young, they represent the possibility of a change from politics as usual in democracies where people feel they no longer have a voice.

When Obama stepped out in front of youngsters at Mumbai’s St Xavier’s College on his visit, he was only addressing his natural constituency when he told them, “I come here not just to speak, but also to listen, I want to have a dialogue.” For those covering Indian politics, it was as if he was replaying one of the many scenes that Rahul has chosen to enact across the country on various college campuses. In February 2010, speaking at a women’s college in Patna, Rahul began by saying, “Normally, we politicians, we like to come… and tell you about our wisdom and knowledge. I find that has limitations. I prefer to try and get knowledge from young people.” The rhetoric was similar, even if Obama said it better.

Born in 1961, Obama is nine years older than Rahul. He became President at the age of 47, and if things go as planned (as now seems more and more likely), Rahul Gandhi will be Prime Minister in 2014 at the age of 44. Many of the challenges that lie ahead of him are challenges that Obama has already faced. It would do Rahul no harm to pay heed to how Obama’s career has shaped up.

Addressing the Indian Parliament, Obama spoke of India: “Instead of succumbing to division, you have shown that the strength of India—the very idea of India—is its embrace of all colours, all castes, all creeds. It’s the diversity represented in this chamber today… And instead of being lured by the false notion that progress must come at the expense of freedom, you built the institutions upon which true democracy depends—free and fair elections, which enable citizens to choose their own leaders without recourse to arms; an independent judiciary and the rule of law, which allows people to address their grievances; and a thriving free press and vibrant civil society, which allows every voice to be heard.” Not since Jawaharlal Nehru have we had an Indian politician who spoke with equal passion on the idea of India. Obama has a rare gift for words that a man can only be born with, but Obama combines this gift with a clearly articulated political vision. This is evident even when he is speaking about India. So much so that Ramachandra Guha has remarked, “A thinker politician like Obama is a rare exception [in contemporary politics], you cannot find his equivalent anywhere else.”

In contrast, the gift of oratory is not something Rahul is born with, even though his abilities have improved with time. But it matters far more that Rahul appears to lack a clearly articulated vision of India. We have heard much about Rahul’s vision for the Congress, but however much Congressmen may like to believe otherwise, the Congress is not India. Consider what a recent piece in Fortune magazine titled  ‘Making Sense of Rahul’s Economics’ concluded: ‘So far, he hasn’t announced any economic manifesto though he is increasingly wading into different economic debates—land acquisition, jobs, grassroots development etc. For a country that seeks fulfillment through GDP growth, his overall economic thinking is still a bit of a mystery.’ This is a problem that extends beyond economics. Rahul will soon have to spell out what he thinks India should be doing in Kashmir or how the country should be dealing with Naxals.

In 2008, when Obama became President of the US, he had been a member of the Illinois Senate from 1996 to 2004, and had been elected to the US Senate in 2004. A lawyer, he also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2002. By the time he became President, he had extensive knowledge of the legislative process in the US, both at the state and federal level. Just the list of Bills sponsored by Obama in the Senate makes for interesting reading. It describes an involvement in issues ranging from voter fraud to nuclear fuel tracking.

In contrast, Rahul has made little or no impact in his parliamentary career, preferring to focus on the party. As of now, he has little idea of the Indian legislative process and the functioning of the Government from the inside. A similar ignorance had cost his father dear. In the years ahead, before he becomes PM, he has several options available, but what risks he will take is the question.

One, of course, is to take the bait Nitish Kumar recently flung his way, challenging him to run a state before criticising a chief minister. The possibility of Rahul projecting himself as a serious CM candidate in UP could do wonders for the Congress in that state. It might also provide him with the necessary experience of running the country. But it would require him to cast away the safety of a risk-free comfort zone within the party.

The other is to accept a portfolio in the Union Cabinet over the next year or two. Too often has Rahul spoken of the two India’s—the developed and confident India that benefits from globalisation, and the India marginalised by the same process. He has also added that Manmohan Singh’s vision of a fast-growing economy is what will bridge this gap, but when he speaks in places such as Niyamgiri, he seems to be contradicting himself, a contradiction that the Fortune citation reflects. One way to resolve this contradiction would be to lead by example. Rahul could accept a portfolio such as agriculture, where he could not only push policies that change rural India, but also dictate Indian policy on food procurement, which is crucial to feeding those left out of the growth story. The incumbent, Sharad Pawar, has time and again indicated his willingness to give up this ministry.

For ten years of Obama’s legislative career in Illinois, the Senate was controlled by Republicans. This will stand him in good stead as he seeks to recover from the mid-term blows that have left Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives and with more seats in the Senate. He has already attempted to reach out to his opponents. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, recently joked on CNN that he’s talking so much with the President that he is on Obama’s speed dial.

Rahul, on the other hand, has invested so much effort in strengthening the Congress organisation that he has little or no knowledge of dealing with crucial allies. In fact, the very argument that the health of the Congress is vital to the health of the nation is debatable. The period of declining health for the party, ever since 1992, has been the best period for India as an economy.

When Rahul does come to power, it will most likely not be as the head of a single-party government. He will be dealing with some of the very politicians he has been so dismissive of. It is true that politicians have thick skins and short memories, but it will do him no harm whatsoever to try and understand India through leaders who represent a different sort of politics.

So far, his friends in politics seem to be people like Omar Abdullah and Sachin Pilot, but the People Like Us factor hides the truth about the importance of men such as Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav. They are figures Rahul has no time for, but they represent important segments of the Indian polity. They understand their political constituency better than an Omar ever will.

Articulating the very basis of the myth of The Hero in ancient mythology, and anticipating its shape in modern fables ranging from Star Wars to Harry Potter, Joseph Campbell had written, ‘A hero ventures forth from the world of common day (departure) into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won (initiation): the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow men (return).’

But in the real world of democratic politics, the myth of the Hero takes a tumble not because it is wrong, but because it stops short. The Hero in a democracy can never bestow all the boons that an electorate demands; after the return, comes the fall.

Take Obama, an ordinary man, a lawyer, who takes the plunge into electoral politics (departure). He is caught up in a world far from the day-to-day lives of ordinary people.  He wins a decisive victory (initiation) and becomes President with the power to bestow boons (return). But the burden of expectations cannot be borne. For some, he didn’t dare enough, for others he dared too much, but eventually his ratings have fallen and even his political future seems in question after the end of his term in 2012.

Much the same happened with Rahul’s father Rajiv Gandhi. It took barely a couple of years before India’s love story with the young man who had lit his mother’s pyre soured. Allegations of corruption eventually ejected him from power. This same burden of expectations has now fallen on Rahul, and he has to remember that in a democracy, it will not take long for public opinion to turn. After all, part of the reason for Manmohan Singh’s continuing success is that not much was expected from him to begin with. Rahul has to be prepared for the eventual souring of public opinion. Perhaps, before then, he can take another leaf out of Obama’s book. At such times, it helps to have a Michelle by your side.

About The Author

Hartosh Singh Bal

Hartosh Singh Bal turned from the difficulty of doing mathematics to the ease of writing on politics. Unlike mathematics all this requires is being less wrong than most others who dwell on the subject.