Congress Leaders and Iyer: Despite his rebellious nature, former Congress minister – and now a critic of the party – Mani Shankar Aiyar appears to stand firmly with his parent party, the Congress, on this particular issuem – the very party that not only propelled his political career but also accorded him positions of significant prominence.
Aiyar was one of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s closest aides and was often referred to as his “right-hand man.” Today, he finds himself somewhat marginalised within the political landscape; nevertheless, he continues to express unwavering loyalty to the late leader and gratitude toward his wife, Sonia Gandhi—even if he unumerous grievances regarding their only son and the Congress party’s presumptive heir, Rahul Gandhi.
Amidst escalating military tensions in West Asia, a deteriorating regional situation, and the looming spectre of a wider conflict, the Congress party has levelled scathing criticism against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel—a visit that took place just two days prior to a joint strike launched by the United States and Israel against Iran. Terming the visit both “ill-timed” and “shameful,” the Congress asserted that it projects an image of “partisan bias and tacit endorsement of unprovoked aggressive action.” Aiyar went a step further than the party line in his commentary.
Even before the war of words between the two political camps had fully erupted, Aiyar had taken aim at Modi just moments before the Prime Minister’s departure for Israel. He had expressed hope that the Prime Minister might, perhaps, call off his scheduled visit. “I object to an Indian Prime Minister going to meet a man whom I consider responsible for genocide and a convicted war criminal [Benjamin Netanyahu],” Aiyar had stated.
At that time—much like the rest of the world—Aiyar, too, remained unaware that within mere days of Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Israel, the nation would launch a bombing campaign against Iran.
If one is to credit the statement made by Israel’s Ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, the timing of the military operation was not determined during Prime Minister Modi’s visit. “It was an operational opportunity that presented itself only after Prime Minister Modi had departed from Israel,” he told the media. He further stated, “The Security Cabinet approved the attack two days after Prime Minister Modi had left Israel.”
Recently, Iyer made headlines when he distanced himself from Rahul Gandhi, declaring that he is “not a ‘Rahulian,’ but a ‘Rajivian.’”
Claiming to have known former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi “very well,” Iyer expressed regret that it was Rajiv Gandhi’s own son—his friend’s son—who ultimately showed him the door out of the party.
It is noteworthy that Iyer was extremely close to former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Consequently, his statements distancing himself from Rahul Gandhi are not being viewed as a positive sign for the Congress party; indeed, the party wasted no time in dissociating itself from his remarks regarding Rahul Gandhi.
This is being perceived as good news for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which views Iyer’s comments as a new political weapon against Rahul Gandhi—a staunch critic of Prime Minister Modi. Rahul Gandhi frequently seeks opportunities to attack the Prime Minister. Iyer remarked, “I do not know Rahul Gandhi at all. Although, 13 years ago, he told me that he agreed with me on the issue of Panchayati Raj and that I was ‘one hundred percent right,’ what he did immediately thereafter was to speak to his mother and have me removed from the post of National Convener of the Rajiv Gandhi Panchayati Raj Sangathan. Immediately after expressing his agreement with me, he showed me the door.”
Iyer also added that, to this day, he is “still trying to comprehend the workings of that complex mindset.”
Following Rajiv Gandhi’s death, when Iyer was facing attacks from all quarters, it was Sonia Gandhi who stood by him. Iyer stated, “I do not believe that Sonia Gandhi ever placed her complete trust in me; however, recognizing her duty toward her late husband, she took it upon herself to look after his friends—much like offering a supportive hand on one’s shoulder. Had it not been for her, perhaps no one would have appointed me as a Cabinet Minister, nor would I have been entrusted with the responsibility of four ministries. All of this was accomplished solely through her efforts.”
But nothing lasts forever, and the very hand that once protected Iyer was, in the end, deliberately withdrawn. Iyer said, “In 2010, P. Chidambaram lodged a complaint against me, and Sonia Gandhi spoke to me with the same severity as a school principal would. Since then, that blessing hand has been withdrawn. Consequently, I have experienced the ‘loss of paradise,’ although I still hope that paradise will be regained.”
However, this hope may well be nothing more than a pipe dream, as many—including even Sonia Gandhi herself—view Iyer as someone prone to making “unbridled statements.” In her later years, she even refrained from giving any space to this former aide of her late husband.
Describing himself as someone who “chooses his moments to speak,” Iyer states that he has now decided to speak his mind freely and call a spade a spade. He does not hesitate to admit that, initially, his opinion of Rajiv Gandhi was not particularly high. For instance, in the aftermath of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, he had firmly resolved to vote against Rajiv Gandhi.
However, his opinion shifted after he joined the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Iyer remarked, “I was astonished to observe how this man tackled, one after another, those very problems that his mother, Indira Gandhi, had failed to resolve over a span of eighteen years. First Punjab, then Assam, and subsequently Mizoram—in every instance, he charted a path toward a solution. Yet, he suffered from the very same weakness that the Nehru-Gandhi family has grappled with since the days of Nehru: the tendency to make poor decisions.”
While critical of Rahul Gandhi’s advisers, Iyer—much like many others—sees a glimmer of hope in the leadership of Rahul’s sister and Member of Parliament, Priyanka Gandhi. From a political standpoint, she is widely regarded as being ahead of Rahul Gandhi in several respects—be it her presence on public platforms or her manner of confronting the Modi government in Parliament. Consequently, while critics view Rahul Gandhi’s political future as somewhat uncertain, they perceive a distinct possibility that Priyanka Gandhi’s leadership could propel the party forward and steer it out of its current political crisis.
Many years ago, a senior leader remarked that the Congress party’s greatest enemy is the Congress itself. That observation appears just as pertinent today. The primary reason for this is that the party remains insular, revolving entirely around a single family—or, to put it another way, it is dominated by a tendency toward “filial primacy.” Simply put, Sonia Gandhi will take every conceivable step to promote her son, even if doing so necessitates sidelining Priyanka Gandhi.
Past events also offer indications of this, given that Priyanka Gandhi entered active politics – and subsequently Parliament – many years after her brother’s political debut. Was the fear behind this that she might outshine him? Or that she might outperform him? Did this pose a risk of dividing loyalties within the party? Or was it merely a strategy? At one level, the answers to these questions appear complex; yet, at another level, they seem straightforward and simple.
