| I cannot but help reflecting that as tranquil was the early part of Rajiv Gandhi's life, so equally turbulent was the last decade of it. 'Success', in the political sense, came to him early, but unfortunately through the trauma of accidents. A brother's loss brought him unwillingly to politics; the mother's foul assassination, only a few years later, elevated him to the premiership of our country. Is it thus not tragic in the extreme that yet another assassination ought to have carried him away as well; and so early, when so much of the promise remained. That is why I an Co loathe to reflect on the ancient wisdom of the Greeks, who, many centuries ago, cautioned against the perils of success coming too early or too easily. But that is only one side of it all. How do I remember late Rajiv Gandhi is what Mani Aiyar had asked me about.
I think the single greatest expectation from him, be it his political allies or adversaries, political activists or lay public, was of change. He epitomised 'change' in those turbulent, trying days of the autumn of 1984 and the winter of 1985. If there is one great yearning that India continues to groan under it is to be free from the shackes of yesterday's politicking and politicians, In the hey day of Rajiv Gandhi's ascension to power that was the focus, both of his attraction and of expectations from him. It was an awesome responsibility to carry. There was just not any instrumentality of change that he inherited when the office of premiership came to bin. The Congress party then, as it is today, is an institution of congealed vested interests, of status-quoits, who wish to preserve their positions only because with then go various attendant benefits of office. I believe Rajiv recognised the inadequacy of the instrument with which he required to fulfil this avalanche of expectations. His during the Congress Centenary celebrations clearly points in that direction. Of course, it was a brave speech. But that was all that it was. It was not a blueprint for leave alone reform; that is why- it remained but a lament. Yet, despite this obvious enough failure, amongst the Indian political leadership, he continued to stand out as a symbol of change. That is what is so remarkable, that he should have retained this symbolism in defeat as in victory, in office or out. In a certain sense, he dominated the Indian political scene in the last half of the eighties: Of course when he was in office, but also, and more remarkably, when he was not. His party recognised this asset. But they exploited it in a manner that was self-defeating. This was a shackle that Rajiv could never shake free from.
|
