The low profile he maintained was inversely proportional to the power and influence he wielded in Indian politics.
Congress strategist Ahmed Patel opens up cautiously in his first-ever on-record interview with The Sunday Standard. Excerpts from the conversation:
You have had a long stint as political secretary to the Congress president…16 years. How do you look back at this period?
I’ve worked with Indiraji, Rajivji, Soniaji, now Rahulji has taken over. On certain issues they consult me. I had the longest innings under Soniaji…first as treasurer, then as political secretary… it was my good fortune. She entered politics during (Sitaram) Kesriji’s tenure. That period was tough, no doubt, challenging for her as well as the party.
From 1998-2004, the NDA was in power. Vajpayee was the tallest leader of the BJP, but the same kind of marketing and branding we see today was being done then as well. Pramod Mahajan was the man instrumental in that; it may not have been on as large a scale as today, still he worked more like a brand manager. They became overconfident with their own branding. The atmospherics was such even we never expected to win the 2004 elections.
So what helped Sonia take on Vajpayee at his peak?
We could prove to the people that India Shining was only a marketing gimmick, a flop one at that. Can you brand a nation for an election? The nation is all-encompassing, bigger than all of us put together. You can’t reduce a nation to a catchy slogan.
Just like now, slogans after slogan: Make in India, Skill India, Start Up India, Smart Cities, Digital India, Swachh India… mere slogans. We go to the ground constantly and see what’s happening. Where’s the progress? Where’s the work? Everything is in a limbo. People are in distress…how long can they live by slogans? They (the BJP) are bound to fall flat…the fate of these slogans will be the same as that of India Shining.
How difficult was the turnaround then?
Very difficult, but Soniaji slowly got a grip over the party and the political situation. The way she managed was remarkable—the party was on the verge of a split. Then the issue about her nationality. She toured all over India, worked very hard, trying to understand the party. She knew the Congress from Indiraji’s time, but taking direct charge is different from familiarity.
In hindsight, do you feel 2014 could have been handled better, that lowest ebb avoided?
UPA-I was absolutely fine, though we lost the Left on the nuclear deal. During UPA-II, the BJP systematically worked on branding the Congress as corrupt. Ultimately what happened in 2G, or the other scams? They’ve been exposed. There was nothing like a scam of `1.76 lakh crore. But we could not effectively counter the propaganda. We thought people would see through it and look at our legislations—MNREGA, Right to Education, Food Security Act, RTI, Forest Rights for Tribals. We created a lot of jobs as well. Compare UPA statistics with the NDA-II, you’ll see.
But the economic downturn did start during UPA-II. You’re now raising farm distress, but why didn’t you implement the Swaminathan Committee report? After all, UPA set up the committee?
It couldn’t have been implemented completely then. We tried various things—farm loan waiver, upping MSP. We made no false promises, as against now. Farmer suicides are happening on a daily basis now despite the PM’s promises.
They were happening during UPA as well.
There was a difference. After 2008, there was a genuine global economic meltdown, large parts of the international banking sector collapsed, oil skyrocketed…still we managed to keep our heads above the water. There’s a sharp decline in agriculture growth now. Please compare MSPs. We’re seeing it in Gujarat and other states…today, the most unhappy classes are farmers and students. One doesn’t have remuneration even when the crop is good, the other has no jobs. We gave a huge loan waiver. This government says it can’t or won’t give any relief to farmers.
But you’re losing power in state after state. Congress roots have dried up in large swathes—West Bengal, Bihar, UP, Odisha. It’s become a party of lawyers and Rajya Sabha think-tankers.
That’s not true. I don’t agree. Bihar, we’ve not been strong for a long time. West Bengal saw a different kind of polaristaion. The Left, when it was in power, they physically eradicated us.
Where’s your grassroot leader, like Mamata Banerjee?
After Mandal and Mandir, the scenario did change. In Gujarat too, post-2002, everything became different. It took years for the divide to heal. You’ve to give it to the Congress—it has not allowed a third force to emerge in Gujarat.
The young boys, Hardik Patel and Jignesh Mewani… are you worried they may overshadow the Congress?
They are talking against communal politics, about people’s problems. Why should we not take their support? In fact, we were ready for alliance with BSP and NCP, but they were asking for too many seats.
Andhra Pradesh was once your mainstay. You backed the bifurcation and lost out completely. What went wrong?
Without Soniaji’s political will and support, Telangana would have never realised its dream. Bifurcation was genuinely felt to be necessary. We lost Andhra Pradesh as result, they were angry. The Congress has made many sacrifices for the larger good in the past too, in Assam, Nagaland.
How did the merger with TRS go wrong?
Too many demands were made. The Congress could not surrender. Like in Gujarat recently, Shankarsinh Vaghela wanted to become PCC chief and decide all candidates. In politics, there are disappointments. Then the wheel turns. It’s a matter of time.
Jagan may now join the BJP?
That’s up to him. I don’t want to talk about individuals, only about political situations.
Your assessment of Karnataka?
We’ll be able to form the government. We ran a lot of schemes for the poor, the middle-class. In fact, for various sections.
Indira, Rajiv, Sonia… what was the difference in their approach to politics?
No comments, no personal questions. If I ever write a book I may be put down some of my memories. Other things I’ll take to my grave.
You mentioned Mandir politics. How about Shah Bano, and now triple talaq?
My party’s view is my view. We’re against triple talaq, it’s unacceptable and detrimental to women. At the same time, the Bill has anomalies. Anyone can complain, and the husband will go to jail. Who provides for the woman and the family? What’s the problem in taking the view of other parties? It can become a better legislation. Who brought the Women’s Reservation Bill? Why are they not bringing that?
BJP can ask, you were in power for 10 years, why didn’t you do it?
It’s was Rajivji’s idea—we introduced in panchayat and local bodies. We passed it in Rajya Sabha, let them get it cleared in Lok Sabha.
The Congress is not in power in most states. Do you think 2019 is still an open game?
When Soniaji took over too, we were there in just two-three states. It changed. Public opinion is changing very fast. Large sections of people are under severe stress. They’ve realised this government is all talk, no work.
And alliances?
It must be on Rahulji’s mind. He must be talking to leaders directly.
Rahul does not need a political secretary?
Of course, he would. It would be his choice. I’m not looking for a post. I’ve done enough for 40 years. Everyone has a different style. Rahulji consults seniors and juniors, he has a slot for everyone—youngsters, elders. He knows which work can be given to whom. A cloth merchant can’t do the work of a scrap dealer. He knows everyone’s capacities and is assigning work accordingly. The younger leaders from the Lok Sabha sit in at our meetings and contribute.
Is the Congress adopting a tactical neo-Hindu stance, deviating from Sonia’s line?
I totally disagree, there is no change of stance. The Congress stands by its ideological commitment. Religion is a personal matter. But Rahulji does not have the right to go to a temple? It can’t be the monopoly of the BJP brass.
Is there a Congress beyond the dynasty?
It’s baseless talk. From 1989 to 1998, no member of the Gandhi family was active in the Congress. Since 1989, we’ve had eight Prime Ministers, none of whom were from the Gandhi family. In every party, every state, in other democracies too, there are political families. Why single out the Congress?