Theoretically, the old committee is still supreme. But, given the Congress’s sycophantic propensity, it is more than likely that the dictates of the new group will prevail. There are two reasons for its primacy. One is that it has been set up by Sonia Gandhi. The other is that it has Rahul as a member.

Although Antony’s name comes first in the list signed by Sonia, the party’s obsequious tradition will ensure that Rahul will be the primus inter pares. Though the youngest of the four, his name comes above those of the two veterans, Janardhan Dwivedi and Ahmed Patel. As a columnist pointed out, Rahul’s name was invariably mentioned first by All India Radio in its bulletins.

It is unclear whether the team will be dissolved when Sonia returns to the country. In all probability, it will be disbanded since its continuance will make little sense once Sonia takes charges again. Besides, its composition can pose problems. Apart from Rahul, the additional importance acquired by its members in the party’s pecking order is bound to fuel resentment. What is more, since none of them, apart from Rahul, can claim to be a permanent member, their replacements may create a piquant situation.

What is more to the point, however, is that its formation has settled the question of the next prime minister. Although it has been assumed since the 2009 general election that Rahul will be succeed Manmohan Singh in 2014, the supposition has now been confirmed. What this means is that Rahul’s views will become even more of a gospel truth for the party. But what are these views? Herein lies the root of another problem.

Till now, it has been assumed that the heir apparent is left-of-centre. It is this perception which appears to have guided people like Digvijay Singh and Jairam Ramesh. Yet, there is no certainty about this inclination. Considering that Rahul sided with the prime minister on the nuclear deal although Sonia was lukewarm about, he is clearly not ideologically Left.

If it is charitably conceded that his Leftism is not a populist stance like his grandmother’s faux socialism, it can be assumed that he does not have strong motivations either for Marx or the market. His promise, for instance, to be a foot soldier of the Niyamgiri tribals was probably an expression of solidarity for an other-worldly group facing aggressive industrialism rather than a desire to let them preserve their pristine way of life at the expense of development. As much can be presumed from another of his observations in the context of farmers’ suicides – that excessive handouts can lead to bankruptcy.

It is these doubts about what exactly Rahul stands for, which will be removed if the new panel begins to freely air its views. So far, the assumption is that the NAC is Left-oriented while the government tilts to the Right. It is also believed that the Congress, on the whole, is uncomfortable with pro-market policies and that, left to itself, it will like to revert to the tax-and-spend socialism of the Seventies with the public sector returning to the “commanding heights” of the economy. Yet, much of this is no more than a supposition, for no one, inside or outside the government, has spelt it out with any clarity if only because the party men themselves are uncertain which way to turn.

One reason for the dithering is that their socialistic preferences not only have a touch of opportunism, but are also vaguely felt to be out of sync with middle class aspirations. The Congress believes, of course, that its base lies among the underprivileged and the minorities. But, it is also becoming aware that even sections of the Dalits and Muslims can no longer be wooed in the age of the ubiquitous cell phone solely with promises of quotas and doles, whether money or food.

If Rahul’s panel clarifies what exactly the Congress stands for, it will go a long way to sweep away the ideological cobwebs from the national scene. The present outlook is too cluttered. While the Congress is standing lost in thought at the crossroads, the BJP has been unable to live up to its earlier Rightist inclinations because, first, of its unwillingness and inability to dump communalism and, secondly, a mindless adherence to anti-Congress policies as its opposition to the nuclear deal along with the Left showed to the dismay of its core middle class supporters. (IPA Service)