The question that loomed over Britain?s 19th century media revolution was whether newspapers should give people what they wanted or what was good for them. That is also the question any thinking political organization should ask itself, and V.N. Gadgil, who enjoys something of the reputation of an in-house intellectual in Congress circles, has attempted to do so again in a note to Sonia Gandhi. Reports of the contents suggest that the document deserves serious attention, though people might find it difficult to take anything about the party seriously in the wake of the fiasco of Giridhar Gamang?s forced resignation and what it revealed of chaos in the ranks. Be that as it may, an interesting feature of Gadgil?s exhortation to dust the cobwebs off the party image in the cause of ?modernizing, remodelling and redefining Congress ideology? is that he should seek inspiration from Britain?s Tony Blair and not Rajiv Gandhi who was himself the embodiment of modernism. P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh picked up what Rajiv had tried; the Bharatiya Janata Party is continuing that experiment, though linking it with its own earlier commitment to private enterprise. However, two crucial differences between the Rajiv and Blair experiments merit notice. Blair, whom an astute observer called an ?upmarket spiv?, took stock of his constituency, examined Margaret Thatcher?s victorious style, assessed Britain?s needs and decided on the most effective means of achieving power. His was an exercise of calculating strategy. Rajiv?s, on the other hand, was an instinctive rather than a cerebral exercise. He wanted to replace his mother?s wheeler-dealer courtiers and roughnecks with his own Camelot of kindred souls. The ?safari-suited brigade?, to quote Madhavsinh Solanki, was chosen not for its intellectual prowess or administrative competence but because the man on whom the prime ministership had been thrust felt most comfortable with his English-speaking mates. The modernizing process flowed from the personalities of the new coterie. The second difference is implicit in Gadgil?s comment that Blair ?made dramatic changes to the party ideology and strategy to spectacularly ride back to power in 1997 after four consecutive defeats?. Rajiv, alas, was not able to do anything of the kind. Many of his intentions and ambitions died even before he did, killed by his own nervous reversion to his mother?s rhetoric as each election approached and by the opposition of the party old guard that he could not quell. Since success has many fathers and failure is always an orphan, today?s Congress leadership probably thinks it safest to gloss over Rajiv?s pioneering but aborted efforts to overhaul the party and its policies. The question then arises as to whether the electorate is now ready for the kind of revolution Rajiv attempted and that Gadgil seems to have in mind. Several supplementary questions also crop up. Is the Congress too busy licking its electoral wounds and squabbling over internal power ever to regain the impact that it has traditionally had on national life? Is it any longer regarded as the vehicle of change or has that role been seized by the BJP with the emphasis on deregulation? Does the present Congress president have the faintest inkling of what her husband attempted and Gadgil is proposing? If she does, does she have around her anyone gifted with the vision and political skill to bring about the transformation? In short, can the Congress recapture its historic role? Doubts and misgivings regarding the Congress affect the body politic in its entirety for the party of independence is too closely linked to the national identity to be wiped off without grave repercussions on many other aspects of life. Without the Congress, and with the left in disarray and centrist forces fragmented, India would be left only with a Hindu dominant party and its National Democratic Alliance dependants. It is in the context of this heritage that Gadgil?s initiative must be welcomed. There is good sense in what he says, but there are also signs that his concern is more with style than content, and that his recommendations were made with an eye to voter appeal rather than the party?s (or country?s) long-term health. Two points that appear to confirm this suspicion are Gadgil?s emphasis on the middle class and his affirmation that ?the political reality is that Hindutva does appeal to a large number of Hindus.? Indira Gandhi often ostentatiously ignored the urban middle class to appeal to society?s lowest common denominator which is also the most numerous. Flamboyant gestures like abolition of privy purses and her ?garibi hatao? campaign were linked to electoral success. The middle class was ?the real opinion maker? even then, but Indira Gandhi was concerned with votes, not opinions. Therefore, merely cultivating the middle class, as Gadgil advises, might still not yield dividends if the BJP is able to whip up lower income group passions. True, the urban middle class, with its left orientation, is a serious impediment to economic reform and must be won over, but this alone will not improve Congress fortunes unless the party also succeeds in selling a more liberal philosophy to the multitude ? explaining the benefits of scientific seed cultivation, for instance. The feeling now is ? and this is as prevalent in the BJP as in Congress circles ? that reform must be surreptitious because the country is not ready for it. Narasimha Rao was more candid about his aims in Singapore than in India. Manmohan Singh probably spoke more frankly to audiences in Davos than in Delhi. And while the BJP launched a commendable and long overdue measure like the insurance bill with almost an apologetic air, the purpose of the four Congress amendments was to demonstrate to the country that the party has not sold out to the capitalists. This pernicious semantic conflict between capitalism and socialism must be exorcised, for at heart every Indian is a capitalist. As a veteran Congress publicist, Gadgil cannot bring himself to ignore old gods. Thus, though he admits that ?socialism? is a liability, he wants it replaced with a tired and meaningless phrase like ?mixed economy? (which economy in the world is not?) instead of being thrown out lock, stock and barrel. Whoever said that socialism is beloved of the populace, and that people will not tolerate policies that promise to make them rich? Socialism is not a mystic mantra. It is an economic recipe. Its traditional appeal lay not in its threat to dispossess the rich but in its promise to enrich the poor. Any effective means of realizing that universal goal will be welcomed if a reformed Congress has the courage to grasp the nettle and acknowledge that wealth generation is its purpose. Gadgil?s second point pays implicit tribute to hardline propaganda about ?minorityism?. If ?secularism for a very large number of Hindus means anti-Hinduism and solicitude for Muslims?, it is because politicians of all hues have persistently abused and exploited the concept. But does Gadgil suggest that the Congress abandon its commitment to secularism because the word does not find favour with Hindu voters in Uttar Pradesh? This is precisely the fire that Rajiv played with, and look where it led him. Moreover, competitive communalism will destroy much more than the Congress if the latter replicates in states under its control what the Shiv Sena did in Maharashtra. As the BJP, too, is discovering, there are no quick answers to the problems created by the sustained distortion of concepts like socialism and secularism. The only solution lies in mass education. But before the Congress can even consider such an exercise, it must educate itself. The feudal faith in a family name which exposed the party?s moral bankruptcy did not even yield dividends at the hustings. It must not now shrink from a modern alternative that can also deliver.