Modi, Rahul and Sonia

Modi, Rahul and Sonia:

I'd say I was politically conscious and began framing opinions around my 7th grade when Rajiv Gandhi had taken the helm with the tag, "Mr. Clean". Those days I was an avid Arun Shourie and Indian express fan so eventually I turned to V.P. Singh until he unleashed Mandal for political survival and thus became what he said he'd not. Then the tragic assassination of Rajiv happened.

It is funny to see the BJP accuse the Congress of dynasty rule. In a way it certainly is and in substantive ways it is not. Indira was the creation of the aging regional satraps, the Syndicate. Rajiv, was foisted by Moopanar over Pranab and others. Its more a failure of inner party democracy that saw the clan perpetuate its hold. However, unless the Indian voter gave the vote they've been faced with failures. After Rajiv's assassination Sonia pointedly refused to take the mantle. This is often forgotten. Only in 1996 facing a near total demise of the party did she step back in. Those were days when even Rangarajan Kumaramangalam bolted to BJP. Without Sonia stepping in the Congress would have evaporated. This is a fact.

In 2004 it was Sonia who led the party to victory. Yet the frenzy of xenophobia whipped up by the BJP prevented Sonia, unconstitutionally, from becoming India's PM. Whether it is the freedom of nuns to visit Srirangam Temple or Sonia becoming PM the fabled "oh India needs no lectures on secularism" is less than true. I'd have much rather preferred Sonia as PM because then she'd have been directly responsible for every action or omission. I consider Sonia Gandhi an Indian and as much an Indian as everyone living in India is. Bowing down to xenophobia she at least let someone as decent as Manmohan become PM. Not an Ambika Soni like Jayalalitha did.

It is irritating hypocrisy to see Modi worshippers sometimes clothe their support of Modi in an economic agenda. When the Congress under Narasimha Rao liberalized the economy it was the Gurumurthys who led a 'Swadeshi Jagran Manch' to raise the bogey of 'Swadeshi'. It was BJP the party of atavist nationalist economics. When Manmohan stepped out of the foreign policy norms to establish a historic partnership with US the Modi wagon did not even squeak in support. It was Manmohan who struck a historic accord with George Bush. Unfortunately Obama and Modi let it whither away.

So what if Rahul fumbles here and there? So what if Rahul reads from a teleprompter? So what if Rahul checks a note before writing out a note? All of that is far better than a empty 56" chested braggadocio who dishes out plain lies as campaign rhetoric. It is better to check notes than to claim Nehru never visited Bhagat Singh. Trump is a childish politician compared to Modi. And Modi has to resort to plain xenophobia to score a point by suggesting that Rahul should talk in his "mother's mother tongue". Like an American asked of McCarthy, "at long last sir, have you no decency left". I've no doubt that he has no decency left.

Kannadigas are better of with 10% Siddharamiah than Yediyurappa who is 100% in the pocket of Reddy brothers.

The Congress, for all their faults, are the last refuge of minorities and those who believe in broad based progress. Congress may be defeated in Karnataka but, as Ted Kennedy put it, "the cause endures, the fight continues".

During the presidential election in 2016 I posted "Democracy is at stake, go vote". I say the same today about Karnataka.

'The idea of India', as Sunil Khilanani framed it, is at the heart of the battle. Swaminathan Ankleswaria Aiyar says the Congress has no ideology and that the BJP is scoring because it has a clear ideology. This is nonsense. The Congress stands for a secular and inclusive India and the so called ideology of BJP is Nazism. Aiyar also lamented that the BJP joining hands with Reddy brothers would malign the 'image of Mr Modi as incorruptible". More nonsensical words are yet to be written. Mr. Modi is nowhere being incorruptible.

Democracy and Secularism is at stake in Karnataka.