M A I L B A G

Congress in a state of drift

MR Hari Jaisingh’s comprehensive article “Congress in a state of drift: revival depends on the grassroots” (The Tribune, May 26) paints a true, albeit gloomy, picture of the Indian National Congress (INC) as it obtains at present. What a realistic/painful picture, indeed.

There is no denying the fact that over the years the INC’s mass base has considerably shrunk. Sheer “adhocism” seems to characterise the party’s policies/programmes/postures as also functioning. Bluntly speaking, the historic party, which successfully struggled for the country’s freedom, virtually looks “ideologically tired” now, as the article aptly observes.

In the past the Congressmen, by and large, were men of “substance”, transparently imbued with the spirit of patriotism and selfless public service. They believed in simple living and high thinking. But, alas, over the years the self-sacrificing guys have literally been displaced/replaced by stark opportunists/ sycophant/
power-brokers, radically changing the complexion of the party. The things seem to have reached such a pass that loyalty to the party’s ideals/policies/programmes no longer seems to count.

TARA CHAND
Ambota (Una)

Rejuvenation problem: It is true that vested interests have highjacked the Congress party. Its rejuvenation will take time.

Indeed, the urgency of channelising the efforts to improve the image of the Congress cannot be overstated. That might be easier said than done.

There are numerous contradictions and paradoxes in the Congress. Everything appears homogeneous on the surface but remain actually faction-ridden at the bottom. It is imperative to revive the democratic ways.

UMED SINGH Guila
Gohana

Gandhiji’s mistakes: The writer takes it for granted that Gandhiji was infallible, and since the Congressmen did not listen to his advise, they failed the Congress.

The fact is just the opposite. All the problems that India is facing today are due to Gandhiji. His followers remained in power for half a century, which made the things more and more complicated.

Gandhiji considered himself above all others put together. He resorted to fast unto death to force others to accept his viewpoints. Paying Rs 55 crore to Pakistan was one of the major reasons for which he went on fast unto death on January 13, 1948. No one agreed to it. Practically, all the state units of the Congress had proposed the name of Sardar Patel to become the Congress President and first Prime Minister of India. No one recommended Nehru’s name. It was Gandhiji who desired Sardar Patel to step aside to make room for Nehru. Had Gandhiji remained neutral, Sardar Patel would have been the first Prime Minister of India, and the fate and history of the nation would have been different.

Perhaps there would have been no Kashmir problem, as Sardar Patel could have dealt with it in a realistic manner.

ANAND PRAKASH
Panchkula

Unjustified criticism

As mentioned in the news-item “SAD ignoring Punjab” (May 24), Mr Jagjit Singh Chaudhary, leader of the Opposition in the Punjab Assembly, recently said that the Shiromani Akali Dal had shunned its fight for the long-pending demands of the Punjabis — transfer of Chandigarh and Punjabi-speaking areas to Punjab.

When the state of Andhra Pradesh was created. Madras was allowed to remain the capital of Tamil Nadu. Likewise, when the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were carved out, the former retained Bombay as its capital. But Punjab was denied Chandigarh on the reorganisation of the state. It was made a Union Territory. Was it not a gross discrimination against Punjab?

Not only this, the state was deliberately divested of a number of Punjabi-speaking areas. Similarly, quite a large share of Punjab’s river water has been unjustifiably given to non-riparian states of Haryana and Rajasthan.

This grave injustice was done to Punjab by the Congress government at the Centre. While the Akalis vehemently protested against it, Congress leaders did not utter a single word in this regard. They obsequiously acquiesced in the Centre’s decision, apparently to please their masters in New Delhi at the cost of Punjab’s interests.

Now Mr Chaudhary says that his party had passed a resolution for the transfer of Chandigarh and Punjabi-speaking areas to Punjab during the Beant Singh regime. It was just an eyewash. There was the Congress government at the Centre then. Why did Mr Beant Singh not get the genuine demands of Punjab accepted? The Congress leaders have no moral right to criticise the SAD on this count. They are raising this issue to rehabilitate their reputation as well-wishers of the Punjabis.

BHAGWAN SINGH
Qadian

Tailpiece

What is common between Prabhakar and Prabhakaran?

Answer: Both are fighting a long-drawn-out battle!

K.J.S. AHLUWALIA
Amritsar