For the Congress to show that it is on the comeback trail, it has to win a few elections. As of now, there isn’t much chance of it achieving this feat. In the recently-held municipal elections in West Bengal, for instance, the Congress showed no signs of emerging from the doldrums.

The next big test for the party will be in the Bihar assembly polls towards the end of the year. But, the BJP’s main opponent there will be the Janata Dal (United)-Rashtriya Janata Dal combine, which is a part of the newly-formed Janata “parivar” although the latter’s unity is currently in doubt.

Given Rahul’s penchant for taking it on alone, it is unlikely that the Congress will align with the “parivar”. But, whether or not it does, few will expect the party to be a main player in the state.

The reason why the Congress may grab headlines with Rahul’s and Sonia’s “fiery” speeches but still remain electorally inconsequential is not only that Narendra Modi is adhering to his road map, as he told Time magazine, but also that he is making a few course corrections as he goes along.

One of these is to ask the Hindutva Gestapo to pipe down, which is why the earlier enthusiasm of the saffron brigade for ghar wapsi and love jihad campaigns has subsided.

Nor has the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, reiterated his favourite theme of calling all Indians Hindus. Besides, the RSS has apparently accepted the government’s advice to shelve the Ram temple issue for the time being.

There is little chance therefore, of the apocalyptic Godhra “moment” taking place, for which the former Congress MP, Mani Shankar Aiyar, has been waiting ever since Modi assumed power.

Aiyar’s expectations of a communal conflagration were evidently based on the belief that Modi would not be able to control the hotheads in his party and in the Sangh parivar if only because the prime minister himself shared their beliefs.

However, in this respect, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor appears to have read Modi’s mind better by noting the transformation of the strong man from Gujarat from a “hate figure to an avatar of modernity and progress”.

It is probably a vague realization that Modi can no longer be judged in the context of the 2002 Gujarat riots which made Rahul level the new charge against him of being in cahoots with industrialists to grab land from the farmers.

The importance of this shift of focus from communalism to what can be called a “secular” subject cannot be denied. To the Congress, Modi is no longer the “maut ka saudagar” or merchant of death, as Sonia Gandhi called him during the 2007 election campaign in Gujarat (though not in 2012), but a promoter of crony capitalism.

However, this change of perception can lead to the Congress into a rough terrain because Rahul’s anti-industrial tirades can show up the party as anti-development and anti-reforms. It is possible that the heir-apparent’s immaturity and inexperience in the matter of carrying on a sustained, coherent attack, which have made him take up an extreme position.

But, it is doubtful whether his party will be pleased or, more importantly, whether the people in general will want the Congress to return to the pre-reforms phase of a licence-permit-control raj. Already, a spokesman associated with Rahul’s young brigade has said that the dauphin is not anti-industrial or anti-reforms.

The backpedalling is probably due to the realization that the party cannot afford to alienate an influential sector if only because the party’s campaign funds may dry up. Besides, the private sector is no longer seen by the younger generation as the ogre as their fathers and grandfathers did.

Instead, there is an eagerness among present-day politicians to attract private capital as Mamata Banerjee’s visit to Singapore to woo investors and the presence of UP government officials at the last “vibrant Gujarat” conclave showed.

What may be worrisome for the Congress, however, is for how long will Rahul be able to continue his present aggressive politicking even if it means switching from one subject to another – farmers one day, net neutrality on another and middle class flat-owners on the third.

For someone who had earlier taken only a sporadic interest in public causes, a sustained campaign based on serious homework will mean a dramatic change not only in working style, but also in demonstrating a grasp of the intricacies of the various problems which he wants to tackle. So far, however, Rahul’s education in such matters seems incomplete.

On the agrarian question, for instance, he has displayed a one-track approach, which shows no understanding of the debilitating fragmentation of holdings which will affect the farmers if they are persuaded to hold on to their plots for generations.

Nor has he shown any insight into the danger of a falling water table which the raising of the minimum support price for paddy can pose in states like Punjab by encouraging farmers to cultivate water-guzzling crops instead of those like maize, mustard, pulses, etc which are more suitable for the dry northern states. (IPA Service)