“I might very well say” the Congress Party, once respected for omnipresence and leadership, that Indira Jee incubated and cherished is in pitiful state. It is in the state of flux, facing public sneer and teetering on the margin of being fictionalized. The leadership is at a loss to gauge public’s frame of mind and facing the quandary of ‘to be or not to be’.  
Under these circumstances, what can the supporters who do not want the Congress to fade away do except to retreat to the sadness of inanimate imagination that someday someone like Indira Jee would emerge to rescue the party. 
Indira Jee left us long time ago. But, if we believe in reincarnation, we can faithfully say that she was reincarnated somewhere in India and she would be thirty years old soon, developed as a wise person, restless to work for the masses she loved, assuming she was reincarnated to be a politician.  However, if she were to join the Congress she created in her previous life, she would be horrified to find that it is besieged with the allegation of vice and depravity.
In this context, the following phenomenon is worth telling:
Although I am no expert on Indira Gandhi, my brief personal acquaintance with her and knowledge of the circumstances of the formation of the Indira Congress - the predecessor of the present Congress - gives me the confidence to invoke her name. I take pride that as a young man I did something for her for which she thanked me in person and expressed her gratitude. Those who know the incident jokingly say my action might have paved the way for her to be the Prime Minister. I say to them nonsense. I do not say it to get credit for anything; I say it to establish relevance to my premise and my premise is the present Congress headed by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is not the same as the one that brought freedom to India. There is similarity but not everything which looks identical is absolutely true; and the truth is Indira Gandhi rebelled against the alliance of a group of traditional Congress leaders who were assembled under the banner of syndicate and feared her ascendency to power. She on the contrary feared the hijacking of Indian democracy by the reactionary forces. Conflict of ideas and need for political survival precipitated Indira Jee to launch the Congress of her leaning that embodied social, political and economic justice. She prevailed in spite of fierce opposition and the party she started became the unifying force.
Indira Jee loved masses and masses loved her. As the protégé of Mohan Das Gandhi and daughter of Pt Nehru, she was exposed to the reality of the time; and the reality was to win the freedom and end the British Rule by peaceful rebellion, resilience and determination. She adopted those skills in later life to lead the country. She championed popular causes and stood with the people, and vociferated what was needed to uplift them. In a way, people were her centrifuge and she used them copiously. The electoral victories were the victory of democracy but when she digressed from the democratic norm and encountered disaffection for imposing emergency, she reversed the course in obedience of democratic principles. I would say, she won democratically, lost democratically and regained the power democratically. She was democratic leader in spite of criticism.   
The history reflects what she was like as the leader and as a human being. One anecdote that stands out is in the averring of Prof. Balraj Madhok. He said, “She wanted me to join her ministry. This is after she returned to power in 1980”.
Just imagine Indira Gandhi contemplating offering cabinet position to Prof. Madhok, a man of superannuated ideas, and her archenemy.  It tells us why power was powerless to intoxicate her and why it was subservient to her democratic principles. Penchant for tolerance was the hallmark of her leadership, which was envied by her critics and admirers alike. Is it possible to withhold respect and admiration from such a leader?
Public Cynicism
Public cynicism is not new to democracy; it is endemic. People question their leaders and make them work for their confidence. Indira Gandhi knew it, respected it and lived through it. But, when the cynicism is caused by persistent corruption, mismanagement and inefficiency, it casts doubt on the efficacy of the party. She would not have commemorated the miniscule victory of the Congress in Himanchal Pradesh nor surprised over the defeat in State elections, Municipal elections and by-elections.  On the contrary, she would have abhorred the incompetence of the leadership to respond effectively to stave off public cynicism that brought the defeat.  
Please allow me to say that Indira Gandhi would have chastised the leadership for the confession that they failed to do what should have been done to garner the support of the masses. She would have questioned the extravagance of self-deceptive and myth- making narration of giving priority to active, honest and dedicated members when the party is devoid of such people and the leadership has no strategy to develop them. She would probably ask who these people are and where are they; and does the leadership consider party’s mammoth bureaucracy and overload of apathetic, profligate and egotistical leaders as the active, honest and dedicated members? It is reasonable to assume that Indira Jee would have concluded that the leadership is frozen in the ice of indifference and any hope to regaining the old glory is just a glorified dream, degenerated as the follies of faded memory.
Though it is difficult to imagine the dawn of another Indira Gandhi, I believe the Congress has the propensity to emerge successful. But, it will require the leadership to make hard choices; and the hard choice does mean succumbing to Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadaw or pampering of Mamata Banejee or compromising with Sharad Pawar. They are allies of convenience and they should be respected for that. If the Congress needs them, they also need the Congress. But, to allow the Congress to wander off for the sake of staying in power is akin to living under the syndromes of ‘whips and scorn’ and ‘sleep of death’. For the sake of its own survival, the Congress cannot abandon its base as counterweight to the forces that diminish its viability in spite of the fact that allies are the foundation of the UPA. It is a miserable situation for which the Congress leadership has found no solution. The only way out of the predicament is for the forward looking leaders to avoid deceptive, dogmatic and devious politicians and depend on the rank and file members.
Let us imagine what would be like if Indira Gandhi was reincarnated and emerged as the leader. It would be the moment in time where everything will change and nothing will be the same.  First, she would examine the performance of her successors and start with Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. She would find her to be the leader of unmatched brilliance, not because she is her daughter-in-law but because she demonstrated extraordinary courage to come to the forefront in the most challenging period of the Congress.  She would admire her for dexterity but take her into task for not realizing that she has special place in the hearts and minds of the people and she squandered it for lack of sustained interaction with the masses. It is not enough to visit the masses when there is extraordinary situation like the flood and disturbance; frequent interaction develops empathy and empathy is the core of political survival.
Few words about her successors
Indira Gandhi would not dismay over the poor functioning of her successors because all of them were propelled into the leadership position of the party by accident. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was yet to muster political perfection before he was thrust into limelight. Probably it was fait accompli that he would follow Indira Gandhi’s lead to garner public acceptance and he did exactly that. He earned the respect of the rank and file members of the party and propelled the country in the modern era. He could have done more had he lived but his assassination threw the party in the state of uncertainty; and the uncertainty produced Mr. Narsimha Rao.
Mr. Rao was great for the country but his failure to strengthen the party that catapulted him in the leadership position dwarfed his greatness.  What was bizarre was the revelation that he had clandestine scorn for the Nehru-Gandhi family and had condescending mindset to dislodge their hold over the Congress Party. It worked against the wellbeing of the party and Mr. Rao was responsible for it.
Before becoming the Prime Minister, Mr. Rao was known for honesty and intelligence but the circumstances changed him. He turned out to be a hypocrite. He allowed bribe to be paid to keep him as the Prime Minister and knowingly or unknowingly allowed his sons and relatives to misuse the office of the prime Minister for personal gains.
Indira Jee would find many reasons for the deterioration of the Congress such as the reinforcement of the BJP, emergence of strong regional forces and desertion by the prominent Congress leaders.  But, none she would find more appalling than the installation of a goofball like Sita Ram Kesari as the Congress President. He had no idea what to do with the Congress and the Congress floundered, and suffered devastation during his short tenure.
Sonia Gandhi: the reluctant leader
The decline of the Congress continued until Mrs. Sonia Gandhi came out of seclusion. Truly, the Congress was on the verge of extinction when she decided to lead the party. She proved that leaders have bewildering habit of emerging from the unlikeliest background. Nobody can deny that she has been a successful leader except for one limitation: she did not utilize her position to revolutionize the Congress; and the Congress is in the shape it is because of what she did not do.
Evolution of Rahul Gandhi: the Heir Apparent 
Whether Rahul Gandhi likes it or not, he has evolved as the leader of the party. From all indications, he seems to be forward looking and devoid of cacophonous arrogance.  But, does he have the desire to be a politician and possess the equanimity to make people believe in him? Without that Rahul Gandhi would be lost in the quagmire of political divide as the bête-noir of opposition. On the contrary, he could learn from Indira Jee that the leaders are the mirror of the hopes and aspirations of the masses and the masses decide the fate of the leaders.
Mr. Rahul Gandhi became the de facto leader of the party just before the defeat of the party in state elections. Many critics like Mr. Mihir Sharma suggested sacking of Mr. Rahul Gandhi from the leadership position. Though the suggestion was unjustified and unworthy of considerations, the critics have the right to criticize and Mr. Rahul Gandhi cannot escape the responsibility. But, to single him out for the years of neglect and political gamesmanship that preceded his political career is disingenuous and has the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Can anyone libel Rahul Gandhi by accusing him of being the coward? He fought the State elections democratically, idealistically and enthusiastically and used his moral resilience to set the paradigm of decency. He treated with contempt the relevance of caste and religion and relied on his optimism to win the confidence of the people. He did not shy away from the danger of losing the election and accepted the verdict of the people with utmost grace.
Unlike Mr. Mihir Sharma who called for his sacking, I have alternative suggestions for Mr. Gandhi similar to the suggestion by Subham Ghose who says in the blog titled “Learn from Emperor Bharat Rahul, act wise at least once”.
Though Subham gives wrong impression of the Congress of Nehru vis- a- vis the present Congress, the state of the Congress has been correctly depicted in the blog. It reads, “The Congress under Nehru was a strong entity with sound grassroots and a creditable top leadership but was destroyed by Panditji's successors. The decline has neared its completion today and Rahul Gandhi will do a great favour to his party and the country if he marked beginning of a democratic transition to the Congress leadership which can nurture fresh policies, ideas and vision. Therein only lies the great organization’s only way to a future”.
Suggestions are effective as long as the recipient takes them in stride. But,  as preface to my own suggestions, I must say that the most pervasive challenge for Mr. Gandhi is ever growing rank of political morons of the party. Purging them for disgraceful conduct would be good for the party and better for the nation, and a step in the right direction but how to replace them so that the gamesmanship of the past gives way to new set of standards for the truth to prevail over falsity, good over evil and justice over injustice.
I suggest the following:
Education: In my opinion, moronic behavior of the people is corrigible unless it is pathological. I suggest educating the political morons of the party in the art of serving the masses over expulsion because expelling them would require herculean effort at the cost of disrupting the working of the party. Although educating them would not come easily; and they would still retain the title of despised politicians, they could be made sensible enough to ingratiate the masses for redemption.
Participation:  To promote participation by the people of all section of society is at the core of my suggestions because interaction of the young and the old, the educated and not so educated, and the rich and the poor would create a sense of team spirit and willingness of its members to coordinate their efforts.  Cohesiveness will promote cooperation and friendliness, which would work to achieve the objectives of the party.
Organizational Elections:
First level of the party organization is Block Congress which is responsible for organizing the masses and disseminating the message of the party. The rank and file members who live in the community know the people better than the leaders. They know how to interact with people and how to attract them to become party members. For these reasons, the election of the office bearers at Block level should be wide open and competition promoted from all sections of the society. Such a strategy will increase membership because each contender would have his or her own backers and all of them would associate with the Congress. It is not a new idea; it is practiced in Panchayat elections where multiple candidates vie for Panchayat level offices and bank on their supporters for victory. The process will be the same except the supporters of all the candidates for party offices would be the supporters of the Congress party and collectively it would be boon for the party. The ripple effect will be the proliferation of membership and foothold in the masses.
Next Level of the party is District Congress. The election of DCC President is open but restricted by precedent to prominent politicians whether they have been elected on the local level or not. The aspirants of the office of the DCC should be encouraged to work with the block level candidates to set off membership drive at the grassroots level.  This process would bring democratic, competitive and fair semblance to the party and the result will be a balanced organization.  No more ad hoc appointments, no more favoritism and no more highhandedness in DCC appointments. The process would be beneficial, and office bearers responsive.
 The Election of the State Congress President is as crucial as the elections of block and district level office bearers. Again the process should be inclusive, competitive and transparent. Probably, it would lessen the need for aspirants to wander from pillar to post in Delhi. The ideal candidate for the State President should not be drafted by the High Command; instead he or she should be elected by the voting delegates and with the understanding that the wining candidate would include the defeated candidate in the administration of the organization.
Participation in Local election of grassroots organizations.
What has been lacking in the Congress is the strategy to promote participation by its supporters in the elections of grassroots organizations like the Panchayats and other local bodies. Grassroots office holders like Mukhiyas, surpunch and ward members are more important than party’s office holders because they interact with the masses on regular basis and know their concerns. The more office holders of grassroots organization belong to the Congress, the more visibility Congress would enjoy; and benefit from it.  
Unresponsive office holders
In the following example, my assertion is not to suggest cutting down the number of the office holders; my suggestion is to make them responsive.  Since I come from Bihar, I have chosen the organizational set-up of Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee for example. It is made up of one (1) President, Seven (7) Vice-Presidents, Fourteen (14) general Secretaries, Twenty seven (27) Secretaries, Sixty Two (62) executive committee members, Thirty Four (34) permanent invitees and Sixty Two (62) special invitees. (The above numbers are based on available data. I have cited them to make my point without the hint of accuracy.)    
In spite of such a humongous bureaucracy, the party was rebuffed in the legislative and parliamentary elections and to add to the misery the office holders of the BPCC asserted that the magic of Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi did not work to bring them victory. I say to the morons what can Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi do when the entire core of the party is rotten?
Example of good organization.
I recall the golden years of Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee. I was a college student living in the campus of Sadaquat Ashram pursuing my schooling. For four years I saw firsthand the functioning of the Congress Leaders as the member of the Youth Congress and a delegate. It was democracy at work. A team of 7- one president, one vice president, two general secretaries and three secretaries worked tirelessly, coherently and amicably. The general secretaries routinely went from district to district to have political discussion with local leaders. They interfaced with the rank and file members to solve problems and attended public meetings to get acquainted with the problems of the people.  When interparty differences erupted, the leadership took immediate action; and provided ideas and programs to resolve it.  Common goal was the success of the party, not individual glorification. Interaction with the masses produced larger membership and the Congress flourished.  By the way the BPCC in those days covered the present Bihar and newly created Jharkhand.
Causes of the down fall of the Congress in Bihar are the same as the down fall of the Congress in every State; and no State is exempt. When there is departure from the established norms, the risk of apathy arises and apathy is the biggest cause of the fragmentation and demoralization of the rank and file members.  Unless there is systematic consonance to bring the party to prominence, neither Rahul Gandhi nor Sonia Gandhi can do anything. 
I have expressed my thoughts as a supporter without mincing words. In some instances I have been judgmental, in other sympathetic but always in the spirit of strengthening the party.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are purely those of the author and may not in any circumstances be regarded as the official view of BiharTimes.