Despite immense power in hand and ample resources in kitty the party lost the 1977 election. It was easier to blame the misuse of emergency powers by officialdom and inability of the cadre to respond to challenges were held responsible without understanding why the party got only single seat in 339 spread all over north and east while it bagged 152 in 204 seats in six states, four southern and two western. Why was such a glaring contrast? Indians were no different. Yet it happened. Why? Surprising was result in Tamilnadu where the party had lost power ten years earlier.

Nor was analysis of victory in 1980 while standing on streets and after often spending days in isolations. Was it merely due to failure of the opponents to transit into a formidable alternative? Yet the party lost Karnataka and Andhra in the assembly polls in 1983 January. Two states had stayed with the party in even in 1977. In Andhra, a man who did not know even the Alphabets of politics having catapulted in political arena from the film world won a mandate. The Janata Party with weakened structure and without resources won Karnataka. Loss was only because the Congress did not fight in both states as a cohesive political force but as the assemblage of favoured minions without advantages of two way communication system. They had no ability to comprehend shifting sands from under their feet and courage and opportunity to convey ground realities to the top.

The system of free and fair debate in all forums of the party was shut down. Advisers chose speakers for public platforms as to who should be allowed and who should not be encouraged to ensure that critical harsh words did not pour out to cause discomfort to the leader. Even in the parliamentary party meetings, the leader only spoke at the inaugural and convocation assemblages and members were not given an opportunity to narrate their stories and their assessment of the shifting ground realities. The climax was the address by the party chief to the Century session of the party at Mumbai in 1985 December. The head of the party had condemned his edifice as collection of power brokers without consequential changes later to weed out such corrupt elements. The condemned party ended with 197 seats in 1989 elections. It never gained a clear mandate thereafter for it stood condemned for all times.

Entire strategy adopted thereafter was not to strengthen the party with choice of right characters to man various state units. Instead efforts were mounted to weaken the opponent in office. Not through use of political logic and presenting a better alternative programme but continuing the same old policy of throwing crumbs at the poor to win their votes. The top leaders remained blind to the transformation at the rapid pace of rural folks with aroused passions for a share in political power. The party doors were not opened to them to enlarge the political influence to include the emerging and politically conscious sections. Even arousal of passions among the Dalit due to social reforms movement of Kashi Ram did not induce the party to review its approach to them. The Muslim mind was not agitated because the disputed structure of the Mosque was demolished in December 1992. They were estranged from the Congress as the Prime Minister Narsimha Rao remained a passive spectator for twelve hours without moving even his finger to stop demolition.

Thus three major social blocks, the OBCs, the Dalits and the Muslims moved out of the reach of the Congress between 1971 and 1996. For 25 years, the decline was evident to all and yet the party leadership did not cogitate over it to initiate remedial measures to restore strength to the party. 1989 to 2014 were two and half decades of coalition politics in which the congress lost its status as the national party. It could not stand alone nor could it win in combination with others. The geographical reach began shrinking with the emergence of new and politically aroused class. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were lost.Even in five states, Himachal, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, where he OBCs did not consolidate into a party and the Congress was pitted against the BJP, it lost grounds. Its strength eroded in Maharashtra as the Marathas got an alternative caused by the Congress by throwing out Sharad Pawar in 1999, who was forced to launch a new party to chip from the Congress base without affecting the political grounds of two other opponents, the Shiva Sena and the BJP.

Reduction of entire party into a subservient machine was felt when half a dozen party leaders rushed in May 1991 to Sonia Gandhi, widow of Rajiv Gandhi to take over reigns of the party and also country even when no one knew of her abilities, her comprehensions of socio economic issues and also her capability as administrator. They did not know even her ability to manage her household. She was chosen merely because she was member of the Indira Gandhi family. Thus the party was equated with a single family and rest showing their incapacity to lead. She declined to take responsibility and be accountable but she continued interference from behind her veil. She continued to be alternative gravity pole within the party.

The Narsimha Rao government was forced to retrieve the Indian economy on brinks of collapse by adopting the World Bank recommended route on the economic reforms. It accelerated the pace of growth but only of white luxury goods. Income disparities increased many folds with private hands reaping benefits of opening of the doors to economy. Nearly 100 million moved upwards to become the wealthy middle class. Economic comforts of other at lower levels did not change but the new aura caused by the global economy spurred them to limp out of their conservative attitudes and approach to life. Education, small family norm and dignity through empowerment of their next generation via education became their new approach to life. In 18 years while Sonia Gandhi occupied the chair of the Congress president, the literacy rate climbed above 75 per cent and 96 per cent of school going age group children began attending schools. It indicated psychic change.

However the Congress leadership did not become cognizant to the transformation to realize a need for a drastic change in its agenda. It called to shed off the jacket of conservative mould of politics and traditional concept of economic development. Masses were seeking dignity of life. Even poor were inspired to think their children also can mint money with education to join ranks of successful exploiters of new world dominated by Information and technologies. It called for renovation of the education system in India to provide quality education to enable new aspirants to reach new heights of life. Instead, the party decided to walk on trodden path laid by Indira Gandhi in 1971 with empty promise of Remove Poverty. Sonia Gandhi had chosen as her advisers 12 members who were not in the political system, in any elective body or anyway accountable to advise her on how to run the economic engine. They came up with yet another charity programme though named as employment programme. It was to give the poor wages but not dignity or ability to earn their bread. This is merely one example to show how the party failed to recognise needs caused by fast transition of aspirations, demands and needs of masses including poor who were no more seeking roti but yearned for the dignity.

Under the longest stewardship of the party than any other occupant of the chair, Sonia Gandhi, the Congress lost more states to leave not even half a dozen states under its rule. Each electoral loss was blamed on inability of the state unit to convert the good will generated by the mother and the son into votes for the party. It reflected their misconception about the electoral process as if voters can be managed by the dynastic notions and driven to vote for the party as animals can be herded. There was not reflection over the fact that weak salesmen were chosen by the party chief and wares sent for them to sell were old fashioned and outdated. Needs of voters were new.

Election after election, Indian voters have proved that an attractive programme package contributes to formation of their political minds at the time when they press the button on EVMs. No other consideration or pressure sways their opinion. Indian people were never worshippers of reigning dynasties. They worshipped only reigning deities. If the party leadership had properly analysed the outcomes, it also would have realized that only an attractive package forms the engine of the election vehicle to provide mobility.

A rich man purchased Rolls Royce car and drove away. Ten kms and car stalled. Engineers came to correct fault. One of them informed owner, ‘Sorry Sir. There is no engine’.

The surprised owner asked how did it then run ten kms? “On company’s reputation, Sir.” was the short reply. The Congress leaders can keep on changing drivers but their vehicle without new engine would not move. If they can analyse how Narendra Modi won unprecedented mandate, h=they would see that personality did not matter. Only programme wins votes. He was defamed for ten years as a communalist. Yet he bagged 282 seats on the election symbol that had not crossed the mark of 182. True politician learns even from the opponents, from their defeat and their victory.