Is there a leadership crisis in Congress?

Rahul resigned as Congress President. Some do raise issues about electing a new President to fill the vacuum.
Is there a vacuum at the top? Not really. There is an interim President.
Do all parties other than Congress have democratic internal elections? Can it not choose its timings?
Does anyone have doubt that Rahul is still the popular choice among Congress cadres, leaders, and supporters?
Rahul felt let down by the leaders and resigned. Why are issues raised by him not addressed until now?
As everyone waits for him to take back his resignation, Rahul by his subsequent actions has in a way asserted his position as the only credible leader to lead Congress.
But, it is still true that there is a leadership crisis. Let us get into this.

Some leaders may have emerged representing the interests of some groups. Some may take up the interests of some group after becoming leaders.
This process lands many in a political party. As politicians, they are associated with power and the distribution of resources or status. They do ensure that their groups do get their share in it.
Basically, there is nothing wrong with it. They are serving as the voice of their group and ensuring their interests and welfare. Democracy is meant for it. They are facilitating that process.
But retaining that trust and their leadership gets tricky in the middle. People start demanding more for their share. These leaders promise, sometimes do meet their demands to sustain their hold on them.
Here, as politicians bound by the constitution, they have also to ensure the equality of all including those outside their group. That is conveniently ignored, diluted. They start limiting themselves as group leaders.

As long as they get elected they have a right to represent them as political leaders of their group.
The problem starts when these group leaders convert themselves into power brokers; they begin as rulers with a collective responsibility to share power and execute responsibilities. They end up making collective bargaining for a disproportionate share in power and distribution of resources.
They may form a group and make demands within their party and if it is a coalition, with other parties for extending support.
These groups may be formed on any basis of convenience and consideration. It may be religion, caste, subcaste, friendship, enmities, likes, dislikes, education, intellect, or the lack of them but common factors of all are plain opportunism and immorality.
This has become so much a common political action for decades, now they proudly call themselves as ‘Chanakya’s’ for their illegal and criminal acts of bribery, kidnapping, forcible confinement.
It is sad but true that most of the political leaders irrespective of the parties they belong to are serving as leaders with a limited interest in a section or group; fail to earn the respect and trust of the large majority of the people. They may still win elections but it is due to the TINA factor.

Let us look at the contrast between the past and present leaders.
Leaders of the Gandhi era were also having differences of opinion on many issues. They registered their differences openly and discussed it.
It is because their top leaders Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar respected and recognized rights to have different opinions out of conviction.
They could fight power with principles. They were people-centric and not power centric political leaders.
Mahatma Gandhi was not holding power but still, the world and powerful British Raj bowed before him. He tried to search for truth and honesty in every act and people were spellbound by his speeches, words, and even silences.
He was not afraid to pursue a new path as long as it was adhering to his principles. Ethics and morality of actions and means were as important as ends and outcomes.
But now we are calling lies, propaganda, hatred, and misuse of power as political acumen, smartness. We are asking leaders to match and defeat them with more of this kind of political smartness. Is it right even if it is really possible?

Why are people power crazy and power centric?
Power is intoxicating stuff and what is required is a de-addiction campaign on a massive scale for our political leaders.
It is not that anyone is indispensable in India now. We have enough talents of relatively equal calibre in thousands if not in lacs to replace anyone.
If you relinquish power and give space to others will you lose importance? It need not be so.
Whether recognition can only be sourced through power? It is not necessarily so.
Why should they not choose a people-centric approach?
Love, respect, care, and concern for others’ welfare, service to society, and people are more human.
There is no retirement, no unhealthy competition for this.
Why don’t they move out from the ‘limited leadership’ with limited credibility to unlimited opening of leadership and credibility available in service to society through any means outside the power structure even if it is through party politics and spreading its service and messages?

Let us take the recent episode of the power struggle in Rajasthan.
This is not a suggestion though there is nothing wrong in suggesting it. Just imagine that when the differences came up, Pilot chose to relinquish his position in the power structure and moved to serve the people or for strengthening Congress with or without specific assignments from party headquarters.
His credibility and contribution would have been immense and would have earned him enviable goodwill and respect among all sections of people. Even now it is possible not only by him but also for others like him. But the essential character needed for this is a hearty approach, with abilities to listen, absorb, and understand others’ feelings.

If at all there is a vacuum or crisis of leadership in Congress, it is only a vacuum of capable mass leaders at all levels creating a crisis.
It is not the absence of talents but the absence of such mass leaders with the exception of Rahul at the top, with a pure heart and totally service minded for the welfare of the people.
Many leaders are required. India had it before. Now for decades, we are devoid of it.
It may be as an individual or as a representative of a party. They should listen, absorb, and be objective in their thinking and analysis.
Whomsoever it may be, whichever party or group they belong, whatever profession they are carrying on, they should come out and speak truth and converse, discuss, analyze issues to bring about solutions for the larger good of the people and serve them in whichever way possible that suits them.

In Search of Sense….