Harish Khare

New Delhi, Sept. 20: The Prime Minister’s media adviser, Harish Khare, has described the Congress as “statusquoist” and resistant to social change — a party that “rewarded cynicism, family nepotism and bogus groupism” and thwarted worthy initiatives by pursuing the politics of “cronyism and crony capitalism”.

Khare made the comments during an address at the launch of JNU professor Sudha Pai’s book, Developmental State and the Dalit Question in Madhya Pradesh: Congress Response, at a seminar hall in the Nehru Memorial Library.

The low-key Khare, a former journalist, was inducted into the Prime Minister’s Office because the Congress leadership thought he would be an effective interface between South Block and the party.

Khare today named three Congress leaders who were “defeated” by their own party: Indira Gandhi, Madhavsinh Solanki and Digvijay Singh, the last two the former chief ministers of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, respectively.

From 1969 to 1971, Indira Gandhi’s slew of radical social policies “failed” because she did “not have the instruments of social transformation”, Khare said.

Among the guests at the book launch was Digvijay, the Congress general secretary who many regard was deployed by the party to test-fire its nuanced policies on Maoists and development, some of which were later articulated by Rahul Gandhi.

“The Congress by nature, chal (conduct) or charitra (character) or both is statusquoist and pragmatic. It doesn’t believe in convictions. Its only conviction is how to win elections,” Khare said.

The problem with attempting social change in a statusquoist order, he added, was “unless a political strategy is in place to deal with the (ensuing) conflict, all good intentions will come to naught. You cannot deliver good politics and a development agenda without good governance. And that can’t come about without good politics,” he added.

The trouble with the Congress, he said, was it had a history of “wanting to change things”. “The rhetoric, from 1969 to 1971. The Congress was saying things, tinkering with legislation. But there was opposition from business houses, the princely class and most important, from organised party bosses. Once it won elections on a certain architecture of expectations, there was urge for political consolidation. The problem with such an urge was to let in every camel in your tent. And too many camels messed up the tent,” Khare said.

In the process of winning elections and consolidating gains, the Congress forgot the country’s “citizens”. “There was only engagement with the voters, no participation in the rights of citizenship,” he added.

Khare said Digvijay’s attempt at practising “good politics” was checkmated by the fellow Madhya Pradesh Congressman and former HRD minister, Arjun Singh. “Poor man, he was caught in the conflicting deals made by mentor Arjun Singh who was fighting the Prime Minister in Delhi and that process continued unabated,” the former journalist said.

Digvijay’s “Bhopal Declaration”— a document that enshrined his government’s commitment to giving Dalits right over land and other economic resources — had “very little traction” in Madhya Pradesh, said Khare.

“It was brought out by these bright intellectuals from outside the state who had no local linkages.... Digvijay set a cat among the pigeons. He didn’t have his party with him. It looked like the personal interest of a leader who thought he could bypass his party and rely on the bureaucracy.”

But Pai praised the Madhya Pradesh bureaucracy. “Digvijay Singh’s handpicked bureaucrats are still very enthusiastic about his programmes,” she said.

An ashen-faced Digvijay later explained: “The Bhopal Declaration was not a knee-jerk reaction. It was a well-thought out strategy to keep the tribals and the scheduled castes on the Congress’s side. I do not agree with Khare that the Congress is statusquoist. It brought in zamindari abolition and the land tenancy acts and reservations. Social transformation has its costs. But we cannot run away from our responsibility even if we lose elections.”