The party fortunes have been drifting down the stream for eight elections since 1989 and yet the party did not see need to understand the causes of its downward drift or of factors that led to success of opponents. The Congress lost power in two states, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in January 1983 assembly polls. It was a distressing development as both states had overwhelmingly voted for the Congress both in 1977 and 1980. Jaideep Sinh Baria of Gujarat had squarely blamed Indira Gandhi for the defeat. In a letter to her he wrote, “You must take the responsibility for the loss as you have shut all party forums for introspection and open debates.” Her response was not to open the forums for free debates but buy his silence with offer of a Cabinet post.

The Congress lost election after election since 1989 with slight recovery only in 2009 over its previous election performance. Yet the party high command did not perceive need to discuss in any forum the performance and understand causes of its dwindling strength. Sonia Gandhi became the party chief in October 1998 to hold the office for two decades, longest duration in entire history of the party, even without formation of the parliamentary board that always was formed to assist the party chief over the political issues. No free debates were held to discuss the election results. Same set of individuals continued as her advisers blaming the state organizations for their failures to convert the goodwill she generated through her campaigns into votes of the party. She conveniently overlooked that she had nominated the state committees and other office bearers. She did not deign to remove weak persons from offices in other states. Nor could she see that her cadre was merely crowd of office seekers that was yearning to have new visiting cards to use influence of their new political offices.

The party manifesto continued to hold same promises and assessments suggesting that the party president and her set of advisers did not comprehend the transformation of the electorate in four decades. The rate of literacy had virtually doubled and proportion of population below the poverty line had halved. Party men could have informed her of the changes as they had to remain in contact with their voters. Instead they were made to listen to her initial and convocation address in each session of parliament. She made no attempt to allow them to narrate their woes, experiences and assessments.

Instead she insisted on formation of the National Advisory Council to function under her command with its members chosen by her. Even though such mechanism was not prescribed in the constitution, the super cabinet was stuffed with social activists who had never sought endorsement of popular vote in their life but had retired from the nominated posts in the government after their differences with their superiors in the system. Their ideas were drawn for their personal beliefs of public good. Such beliefs were never put to popular approval by contesting any election.

They came up with scheme of guaranteed employment, one to each family in rural areas without specifying works that could add to national assets. Initially the scheme was to provide hundred days work at daily wage rate of Rs. sixty per family. In other words, it came to Rs. five hundred per month for a year per family of average four. It worked out to be guarantee of Rs. 125 per month per head in rural family when the poverty line was pegged at Rs. 500 per capita per month. The daily wage was raised later when its unattractive feature was realized. It was a different form of charity. Without waiting for assessment of benefits accruing either to nation or employees, Rahul Gandhi sought its expansion to cover entire country.

The Super Cabinet came up yet another ground breaking scheme, at least in its own belief, of food security scheme demanding draining of the national resources to the tune of Rs. two lakh crore on a scheme that was purely of consumption nature. It was nearly half the amount available for all development in 2012. The scheme was implemented in Delhi and yet the party lost all seven seats in 2014 elections. Its aggregate strength in the Lok Sabha did not qualify it to be recognized as the main opposition party. Yet not a single word on its failure emerged from the Congress president.

Neither has she perceived need to understand why she failed to encash her family name against Narendra Modi and who in her party had frustrated the idea of her son Rahul Gandhi who had attempted to reach out people to know what they wanted to happen to their life so the party could rewrite the election agenda. Instead of allowing him to reach people he was manipulated by presenting party workers in different garbs?

Instead of affecting reorientation of her agenda for the election in the light of the last electoral debacle, she insists on ushering in one more member of her family to change fortunes of her party in the current confrontation. She has reached the end of her thinking. She cannot be blamed alone for she was not given to understand Indian politics or the process of social and economic transformation of rural society. Her advisers from the past and present lot have led her to believe that Indira Gandhi rules hearts of poor. No one tells her that this is third generation of poor since Indira Gandhi who is now merely a page in Indian history that they have had to read in their school. Pages of history do not bring about changes in formation of political minds of voters. Individuals, however powerful political personality or with family connections cannot make the grade unless they have up their sleeve what people yearn for.