What’s the point of Rahul Gandhi? The Economist has said. Back home, expect censuring by livid partymen. Offence of late has been their best defence. Diggys with tireless garrulousness and Sibals with impish frowns will be unfailing. The PM has already made to the cover of many coveted foreign magazines. Rahul’s is maiden.

The 42-year-old scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is as curious a case as Benjamin Button’s. At least in politics, his has been a growth in reverse. As days grew uproarious in and out of parliament and tension spilled onto streets, he grew calmer, taking refuge in his innocuous silence and infectious smile. That is just not done. The media and the opposition have been daring him and partymen imploring — to rise. Sitting pretty goes against the grain of dynastic rule, pundits have argued.     

“… he has long refused to take on a responsible position, preferring to work on reorganising Congress’s youth wing, and leading regional election efforts, both with generally poor results. The problem is that Mr Gandhi has so far shown no particular aptitude as a politician, nor even sufficient hunger for the job. He is shy, reluctant to speak to journalists, biographers, potential allies or foes, nor even to raise his voice in parliament. Nobody really knows what he is capable of, nor what he wishes to do should he ever attain power and responsibility. The suspicion is growing that Mr Gandhi himself does not know,” The Economist has written.

So, in the clamour, there are two discordant voices. While foes say he must rise, friends assure he will. The option ‘neither’ ain’t just there. That perhaps is the price of privilege. Why can’t a scion just refuse to climb the fence, let alone sitting there? There is no guarantee that dynasties don’t produce duds. King John of England (1166-1216), the last of the Angevin kings, is one shining example. His decade-long reign (1189-99) was one long papyrus scroll of failures. Closer home, the brilliance of Mubarak Khan, Sultan Allauddin Khilji’s son who ascended the throne in 1316, is blinding. Mubarak’s four-year (1316-20) rule is generally described by historians as repulsive and embarrassing and he was considered as an insult to the throne. History knows him as ‘nashudni’ or good for nothing. *

That is just one type. There have been those who never rose to the occasion and the throne. History is replete with examples. And those who have a problem with this forced and protracted search for a historical comparison must also realise that time is up for dynasties. Any example of a continuation is born out of a lack of options rather than choice. The Rahul problem must be analysed in that light. And if sparing can be a choice, it will be saving grace for everybody, including him.

Read the full The Economist piece here