As Rahul Gandhi took the dais on March 20, at Thakurwara, western UP, lightning crackled and thunder boomed. 'Help us return UP to the path it was on 15 years ago' said the 37-year-old, Western-educated former management consultant, who is the son of Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress. The next hope of the Nehru dynasty that has dominated Congress for five generations, he is leading its campaign for a month-long election, starting on April 7, in India's most populous State, commented the The Economist of March 24th-30th 2007 in its write up about UP elections.

It explains Western attitude to Congress - the dynastic party. Words like 'Western educated', 'management consultant', '37-year-old' have been used in a glorifying manner, while unaware, either about the depth of Western education or about where did he worked as management consultant and with what results.

But I am aware about some of the comments made by him during his election campaign. He said, that had his family members been politically active during the days of Babri demolition, it would have been averted. What did he mean? While it is definitely a slur on the then Prime Minister personally and all other non-Gandhi leaders of Congress in general, conveying the message that they do not know how to govern or take prompt action.

One other meaning which is consistent with the Congress is that of Muslim appeasement. How badly his heart was bleeding on Babri demolition? Given a chance he would construct Babri Masjid on that very spot. Needless to say he was totally unconcerned of Hindu sentiments for building of a grand Ram janam Bhoomi Mandir.

Rahul Gandhi appears a little forgetful about the fact that his father, Rajiv Gandhi, started his election campaign from Ayodhya after the negotiated settlement of Shilanyas of the temple was conducted by Buta Singh, Home Minister in Rajiv Government. Emphasising his credentials as scion of the Gandhi family he claimed to be inheritor of Nehru - Gandhi dynasty (not Mahatma Gandhi).

I think he meant all these things when he uttered that particular sentence. But I have to clarify certain points. Did he want to share a feather in Rajiv's cap of muddling into Sri Lankan affairs and sending Indian peace keeping force ending with loss of face of India? I also do not expect any honourable Gandhi, man or woman of the dynasty, to feel ashamed of Bofors deal. The diplomatic skills exhibited by Indira Gandhi with Zuffiqar Ali Bhutto, who succeeded in getting release of 9,1000 prisoners of war of Pakistan without giving anything in return, is worth mentioning. The fact being that we could have settled Kashmir issue for all times. One can question whether India benefited, in any way, from the partition or it actually lost in terms of national interest on many counts. As of today India is flanked by two Islamic terrorist states. Both of them have been creating problems for Indian internal security.

Hordes of questions about the administrative and diplomatic abilities of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty can be asked. Wisdom in internationalisation of Kashmir issue, day dreaming of Indo-China relations, unprepared battle at the borders and national humiliation faced are only few examples. Independence came alongwith bloody chapter of partition as per British scheme of things.

The real power went to the people who were understudies to the colonial power. By and by who stirred the soul of India were shown the door. Till date Sonia Gandhi has kept away from UP election campaign. One can recall that whenever there was certain hope, she plunged into the campaign. In UP she has lodged Rahul Gandhi. I apprehend that his one sentence must have made non-dynasty Congress leaders ill at ease. His remark is loaded with dynastic arrogance. He has been a Lok Sabha member for almost three years. His thundering silence is not studied expression of mum; rather the strategy seems to be of saving him from embarrassing moments.

One can recall that an year-and-a-half back he gave an interview to Tehelka Weekly wherein at one point he said, "I could have become Prime Minister at the age of 25" which virtually meant that it could have been in place of Narsimha Rao. But he said, "I preferred to gain more experience before taking up responsibility". Narsimha Rao Government did not have majority. So it was compelled to compromise with certain small groups and yet Rahul Gandhi said he could have become Prime Minister at the age of 25. In that interview he criticised Bihar and UP and got trapped in the question - then how come your party supported these Govts? He could only mumble, "senior leaders of the party". Congress spokesperson was at pains in explaining the controversy. Abhishek Singhvi first explained that Rahul Gandhi has confirmed about not giving the interview, then further clarifying - it was a casual chitchat. However, Tehelka Weekly stood up to their version.

Courtesy: www.dialypioneer.com, April 1, 2007