Opinion: Rahul Gandhi in a new avatar, aggressive on ideology but real issues of the public are something else

Here one can see a significant difference in the political approach adopted by opposition leaders. The approach is more about ideological issues and less about value issues. In political science, a valence issue (employment/corruption/cost of living) has a uniform appeal across voters, while an ideological issue is one that divides opinion across different sections.

India has a large segment of voters who base their voting choices on the ability of parties to deliver on cross-cutting valence issues. Ideological affiliations can be weak. For just one example, consider the dramatic decline of the long-dominant CPM in Bengal and Tripura. The rapid disappearance of their large 'left' voter group is an indication that a party's social support base largely derives from its credibility in securing power and its ability to deliver public goods. Without these two compelling factors, ideological positioning becomes irrelevant.

Political philosopher Georges Sorel said that a political vision is nothing but a 'social myth' – a symbolic, often utopian view of the future that can mobilise the masses behind a political force. It is situated at a higher level than ideology, creating a path to achieving the vision.

Under Rahul's leadership, the Congress has gradually reinvented itself as an egalitarian left-wing force. The party has expanded its constituency, especially attracting regional, backward caste and Ambedkarite voters who once viewed it with suspicion. However, its core message of reducing inequality can be expressed more forcefully by linking it to an attractive vision of the country's development that promises upward mobility and expanded livelihood opportunities for all.

A CSDS-Lokniti survey earlier this year found that unemployment is a serious concern for nearly two-thirds of voters. The highest proportions were found among OBC, Muslim and Dalit voters. The rest of the voters are not only conscious of communal issues but are equally concerned about livelihood concerns.

The 'Gujarat model of development' presents an attractive vision. In 2014, the campaign cushion provided by this symbol helped the Modi-led BJP win a clear majority for the first time in nearly three decades. It projected an image of rapid private-investment-led growth and commensurate job creation (based on the mantra of 'minimum government maximum governance').

The NDA’s dismal performance over the last 10 years has badly dented this outlook. The level of private investment (measured in terms of gross fixed capital formation) has not been impressive, while job creation has been stagnant. The World Bank projects that the manufacturing sector in India will account for 13% of GDP in 2022, down from 17% in 2010, a decline of 4 percentage points.

In the 2025 ‘jobs budget’, the NDA 3.0 allocated $1.2 billion to its flagship job-training scheme for the emerging ‘neo-middle class’. In comparison, the Modi government allocated a 10 times bigger share, $10.3 billion, to the UPA-era rural employment programme MNREGA.

NDA 3.0 is facing questions on job creation. So, this is a golden opportunity for Rahul to offer an alternative view on jobs. Not just to connect with poor voters, but also to rekindle Congress’s ties with the ‘Manmohan Singh-middle class’. This class voted for the Congress in 2009, but in the last decade it has moved to the BJP (or, in Delhi, the AAP). The Congress can build its symbolic political capital as the architect of the country’s post-liberalisation middle class.

During his US visit, Rahul spoke about the unemployment crisis and at one point suggested that India could learn from China and Vietnam in moving from a consumer-centric economy to a production-centric one. In addition, he advocated a manufacturing-led approach and cited the progress made by states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. All the ideas are interesting but they are presented without much detail and are unconvincing.

Instead of making inconsistent suggestions, perhaps he could have clarified the Congress' own economic vision. What are the best governance practices India can adopt from countries like China and Vietnam? What are the best practices adopted by states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, and can these be combined to form a national model? How is the new Congress different from the UPA-era Congress in terms of economic policy? Does the Congress support sweeping reforms in the bureaucratic structure? How does the party view state-centre relations? What are some of the major measures taken by Congress-ruled states on educational reforms, social equality and economic opportunities? Does the party advocate the India Alliance model or the Congress Development model for development?

The Congress's campaign for the upcoming assembly elections in Haryana, Maharashtra and Jharkhand may be tested on addressing broader economic concerns, especially jobs. In the first two states, the Congress alliance is dependent on the support of the dominant agrarian castes (Jat and Maratha). Therefore, it will have to carefully calibrate its appeal on caste-based distributive justice. In Jharkhand, the Congress's role as the JMM's junior partner will be to reach out to voters in urban-dwelling and caste-Hindu constituencies outside the tribal heartland.

The Congress has already firmly established itself on the centre-left political continuum, and is moving into areas with fertile social bases. But just as a fisherman expands his catchment area by casting his net over more and more territory, the Congress now needs to cast its net as wide as possible, and to do that it clearly needs capable hands.

(The author is a political researcher.)