The mushrooming of non-official awards each New Year now resembles a competitive theatre of the absurd. On the evening of January 17, many Indians must have as puzzled as me on seeing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh being honoured with a Leader of the Year award by a leading media house.

Our Prime Minister is a soft-spoken, and an innately decent man who doesn't like throwing his weight about. Unfortunately, he is about as much a leader as Pervez Musharraf is a democrat. This, in fact, was quite apparent at the televised version of the awards ceremony itself. Called to present another award to Rajinikanth, Manmohan stood stiff and purposeless on stage, staring into space while some TV presenter conducted an inane Q&A between the Tamil idol and other celebrities.

True, the Prime Minister was a model of civility but the mere fact that some insolent journalists could take him so much for granted suggests there was something inappropriate about the award he received. Can you imagine Indira Gandhi being similarly slighted or even the much-reviled Narendra Modi?

For the past three years, the lack of a decisive head of Government at the Centre was attributed to the quirks of someone's "inner voice". However, as the country moves steadily into election mode the Congress has to confront the question which it knows has to be answered: who will be its Prime Ministerial candidate in the next general election?

Of course, it could persist with the Leader of the Year. However, apart from the jury members who lured him into attending the function with this sop, it is unlikely that this resounding faith in the Prime Minister is shared by the voting classes. Whether it was in Punjab (ostensibly his home state), Bihar or Gujarat, Manmohan's election rallies could well have been mistaken for book release functions. During the Gujarat campaign, Modi evoked derisive laughter from his crowds when he said: "We have a Prime Minister. Do you know his name?"

The political problems of facelessness wouldn't have been a source of anxiety had it been apparent that elections were won on Sonia Gandhi's name. Although there are flatterers who insist that this has been the case since she entered politics in 1998, the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. In 2004, the vote was against the NDA rather than in favour of Sonia. The three occasions the Congress secured re-election in states-Madhya Pradesh in 1998, Delhi in 2003 and Assam in 2004 - was on account of strong Chief Minister and (in the case of Assam) opposition disunity.

The Congress' reverses in a series of Assembly elections last year was, of ourse, mainly due to local factors. However, the defeats also demonstrated that neither Sonia nor the Centre have an autonomous vote-pulling capacity. In Uttarakhand, for example, the Centre's mismanagement of prices was a factor in pulling voters away from the Congress. In other states, notably Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, the UPA Government's pro-aam aadmi sops and handouts proved utterly ineffective.

And, in all states the Centre's inept handling of internal security played its role in creaming support away from the Congress. To put it bluntly, there is nothing in recent poll results to show that Sonia can buck anti-incumbency. In fact, if it hadn't been for the hands-off approach towards entrepreneurship-its flip side is the complete halt in the economic reforms process-the UPA Government's problems would have been far uglier.

The CAG report on the NREG programme which points to a disastrous delivery record may a pointer to why there is no great enthusiasm for the UPA Government. Like the spurious garibi hatao slogan of the 1970s, the aam aadmi approach has raised expectations without any prospect of delivery. Likewise, the exaggerated rhetoric of minorityism has whetted Muslim appetite for power but the UPA dare not begin translating it into reality.

The retreat over another States Reorganisation Commission didn't happen because of Telangana or Bundelkhand. It could well have been prompted by the scare that a Harit Pradesh in western Uttar Pradesh may see a Deoband controlled province in the heart of India.

In 2004, Sonia steered the UPA into prioritising welfare and minorityism. Three years later, both the NREG and the Sachar allurements threaten not only to carry diminishing returns but even become the Congress' swan.

For the Congress if the present is bad, the future seems alarming. There is no great enthusiasm anywhere except the AICC headquarters for Rahul Gandhi. He stands for nothing in particular, has shown no flashes of brilliance and has demonstrated no inclination to get his hands too dirty.

His Uttar Pradesh campaign yielded as many lost deposits as in the past and in Gujarat the party had to ferry bus loads of support from neighbouring Maharashtra. In Surat, the city which he was supposed to mesmerise on the final day of the campaign, the BJP increased its popular vote share exponentially. If only Indian elections were a face off between Rahul G and Bilawal B, life would be uncluttered.

Apart from a Manmohan-like decency, the only thing going for Rahul is his age. In a country where there is a glaring mismatch between the demographic pattern and political authority, the heir-apparent has the potential of relating a little better to the under-35s. However, in the three years he has been in politics, has Rahul demonstrated either spark or commitment? He remains mired in his babalog inheritance. He is happiest in the company of PLUs and the most uninhibited asking Shahrukh Khan a pre-arranged question. At this rate he may even be in line for next year's Leader of the Year award from NDTV. Maybe they will persuade Mayawati or Modi to hand over the prize.

Courtesy: www.newindpress.com, January 26, 2008