Click to play videoNew Delhi: Amethi MP Rahul Gandhi is at the end of his three day roadshow in western Uttar Pradesh. The crowds were perhaps a bit thin, the speeches contained a few faux pas, but the message was clear: Rahul Gandhi is in the political battleground.
On the last day, the scion of the Gandhi family said that he has a new vision for a golden future. However, many feel that with the Babri Masjid comment made in the quest for Muslim votes, Rahul may have indicted his own party.
Rahul had earlier said, "Had anyone from the Gandhi family been active in 1992, the Babri Masjid demolition would not have happened at all." He also said, "I have come here with a vision and only youth power can make the change happen. I wish to inspire the youth."
The young leader had also said, "The 1996 alliance destroyed Congress in UP. The alliance in UP was a virtual sell-out of the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh."
The question CNN-IBN was asking on India 360 was: Has Rahul Gandhi made an impact on the nation and in UP or has he demonstrated his political immaturity?
On the panel of experts to try and answer the question were CEO, Future Brands, Santosh Desai; Congress Spokesperson, Jayanti Natrajan; and Editor in Chief , Pioneer / MP , Rajya Sabha, Chandan Mitra.
Were Rahul's statements impactful or just naive?
Rahul Gandhi's statement that if a Gandhi family member had been ruling, the Babri Masjid would not have been demolished, seems like a feudal indictment of the Congress party. He seems to be trying to say that Congress as a party is not good enough and not secular enough, and it is only the Gandhi family that is secular enough and which could have protected the Babri Masjid.
Jayanti Natrajan disagreed with this point of view saying, "That's not what he meant at all. What Rahul Gandhi said was no more than Congress' stated position that the Congress party stood for secularism. What he has said perhaps should be seen in the context of the fact that this was something Rajiv Gandhi had perhaps observed. And if you remember at that time this was in the air that we should stop the demolition at all costs. This was the Congress' party's stand. So I don't believe he said anything more than our stated position."
But then there have been rumours that it was Rajiv Gandhi who had opened the gates of the Babri Masjid and allowed the puja of the Ram Lalla, and the Shilanyass (foundation laying ceremony) for the Ram temple on the disputed land on November 9, 1989. On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished and it was the V P Singh government which was at the Centre then.
Rajiv Gandhi was also the one who overturned the Shah Bano judgement, which led to accusations of appeasement and which also led to the entire VHP movement. In a nutshell, was it not Rajiv Gandhi himself who flirted with Hindutva forces?
Chandan Mitra agreed and said that he was astounded by Rahul Gandhi's remarks because of the above reasons. "History is witness that systematically, that Congress played footsie with both the Hindu and Muslim communities. To allow the Shah Bano case to be overturned, Rajiv Gandhi opened the gates of Babri Masjid to be worshiped and Shilanyass was conducted. Congress was in power at the Centre then and in UP as well," he said.
"It was Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Buta Singh who had gone and executed the Shilanyass programme. To say that Babri Masjid would not have been demolished if Rajiv Gandhi was around, I think, is a little far-fetched," Chandan Mitra added.
Is politics dinner time conversation?
There was another point that Rahul made during the UP roadshow - "My father told my mother that he would defend the Babri Masjid with his own life. He would have stood in front of it and defended it."
Rajiv Gandhi had never made any such statements in public, so is Rahul Gandhi trying to bring in personal politics by revealing these kind of family conversations?
To this Jayanti Natrajan said, "I feel a sense of deja vu. When Rajiv Gandhi and then Sonia Gandhi first came on the political scene, people have analysed and criticised every word that they have said. Later on it has been found that they have stood up, faced the scrutiny of the nation and come out much stronger people. I think it's very unfair and uncharitable to do this to them."
Rahul Gandhi, the ad-man?
Is Rahul Gandhi's brand that of a youthful, young leader straining at the leash of the past or is he someone just keeping alive the family business?
To this Santosh Desai said, "I think he is really a brand extension in some senses, more than the actual brand itself and I think what he really needs to do is make a credible, plausible extension of the strong brand that he is connected to. I think that perhaps it could be said that in UP there is not that much to lose and all that really needs to be communicated to the people is some sense of significance. "
Does that mean that Rahul Gandhi is standing forth as a youthful leader or is he too bound by his family and a sense of feudalism?
"Being youthful does not mean that history will start the day you enter politics. Although Rajiv Gandhi did once say that it's better to make history than to read it, I would advise Rahul to go back to the history of Congress party. If he says now that Babri Masjid happened under the Congress government but I assure you that something like this will never happen again, I think that would be a very credible statement from him," said Chandan Mitra.
Mitra also said that Rahul's statements smack of a certain dynastic arrogance - an arrogance that says that it is the Gandhi family alone which can ensure the Congress' secular policies and values.
Betraying his political naivety
The statement made by Rahul Gandhi: "I am blind to caste and religion" - does that imply that he is also blind to the realities of Uttar Pradesh?
"Is it wrong for a youth leader to say such things? Is that not what we want to do? Is it wrong to be idealistic? Should we not ever aspire to a stage where we can talk about development instead of caste? Should we always remain stuck in a rut of caste, religion and vote banks?" Jayanti Natrajan wanted to know.
However, this was not the only naive statement that Rahul made. There were other statements about how the alliance with Mayawati in 1996 was a mistake - that is a statement that may affect the future of Uttar Pradesh.
"He spoke about the agreement with Mayawati's party in 1996, where according to our present wisdom, the Congress party had made a mistake. We conceded too much ground to Mayawati then. That was the context in which Rahul had made the statement, not in a future context," clarified Jayanti Natrajan.
So what is wrong with invoking dynasty? After all, the Gandhi brand is 100 years old in India so what is wrong in dynasty politics? At the end of the day, the Gandhi family is a brand that sells.
Chandan Mitra said he did not refute the fact Brand Gandhi sold well in India. "The people of the country have shown again and again that they have a certain faith in the Gandhi family and the Congress party has projected the family as it's only 'stock' in trade. As long as people accept them, I don't see a problem," he said.
However, he added that what was disturbing - more for Congressmen and women than for anybody else - was the fact that other Congressmen, including the prime minister at the time of Babri demolition, P V Narasimha Rao was in effect rubbish. "If the Gandhi family was so concerned about what happened in December 1992, then that was the time that they should have come out against the demolition. But no one did. Even Arjun Singh spoke against the demolition much, much later."
"I agree that caste and other divisive forces have to be fought, but when the same party's Prime Minister says that Muslims have the first right to the nation's resources and the Andhra Pradesh government earmarks job quotas, I am afraid then there is a huge gap between what they say and what they do," Chandan Mitra added.
Is Rahul Gandhi elitist?
Rahul Gandhi's statements have made him out to be a little too urban, a little too elitist. It seems that he is simply not wanting to get his hands dirty with caste and religion.
To this, Santosh Desai said, "I think Rahul Gandhi's real constituency is the Congress party. I think the party needs a brand like Gandhi which has a presumptive authority. That's the one unifying force that keeps the party together. To that if you were to read it from the perspective of his constituency, then I think Rahul Gandhi is probably doing the right thing."
In the end, what one can conclude is maybe Rahul Gandhi is simply focusing on keeping the Gandhi brand alive and is not really focusing on the 2007 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections and is instead zeroing on the 2009 general elections.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.