The Nehru-Gandhi brand failure?

Santosh Desai
01 September 2013, 06:38 PM IST

It can be argued that the brand that receives the single largest investment by way of promotion is the Nehru-Gandhi family name. Dozens of institutions carry this label, and the media is awash with ads on days that mark significant milestones in the lives of these leaders, in particular those that have departed the world. That this should be so in a democratic country like ours is reason for disquiet, and this has been much commented upon. But what is equally striking is how ineffective these attempts to build the family brand has been in spite of all the investment that backs it. For a family that has ruled India for almost five decades, and done so with the explicit consent of the Indian public (except for a 19 month period), the reputational assets that it has gathered leave much to be desired. This is spite of a concerted attempt to drive home the contribution of the family at every possible occasion.

A recent ad in the Bharat Nirman series underscores the issue. A wholly contrived and completely gratuitous reference is made to Rajiv Gandhi in an ad about the value provided by direct transfers (an idea attributed to the late prime minister, helpfully brought back to us via a black & white clip). Apart from the laughably crude attempt to invoke a false memory, it does beg the question as to why it is so difficult to remember Rajiv Gandhi. Certainly there have been no dearth of institutions named after him and his birthdays evoke a gush of ritualistic ads from several government departments. A considerable amount of effort has gone into building his brand, but today, there is still reason to recall the otherwise erased-from-history Narasimha Rao, particularly as we go through some economic turmoil, but not Rajiv Gandhi, once India's Prince Charming. In spite of having once been the symbol of a younger, resurgent, more globally connected India and despite having a tragic and untimely demise, Rajiv Gandhi's place in the national consciousness is limited, at best.

This is true of the Nehru-Gandhi brand in general. In recent times, the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru has been diminished like never before. From a time when he was an unquestioned and hallowed presence on our walls, an uncritical part of our memory of India's founding fathers, he is today the subject of an increasingly hostile critique. The narrative that has sprung up around him, is one that paints him as the architect of all that was wrong about India's economic policy. While there may be enough reason to critique the nature of policy choices made by Nehru, the dismissive nature of the argument lacks all nuance and context. The idea that Nehru should have acted more responsibly towards 2013 informs much of the criticism. He is also retrospectively held responsible for the creating a dynasty, something that he could not possibly have envisaged in his lifetime. The criticism of Nehru, although neither completely false nor illegitimate, is constructed by reducing him to a caricature-sized figure, as seen through the inverted binoculars of a demanding consuming class. The appropriation of Sardar Patel by the BJP and his deification as a stronger counterpoint to the somewhat effete idealism of Nehru, is part of the reshaping of the memory of Nehru that has been taking place.

Part of the problem lies with the manner in which the dynasty has been perpetuated. Naming institutions or running ads is a sign of power, not significance. Memory by itself has no value if it contains nothing inside; India is full of M G Roads without the Mahatma anywhere in sight. It is truly ironical that too much remembrance, most of it shallow and insincere has made the Nehru-Gandhi brand appear as an interloper into history rather than as a legitimate resident. The family name is everywhere, but there is a little sense of the meaning that the name provides. The current disenchantment with the government and the dynasty is also rubbing off retrospectively on its earlier members.

Perhaps this is a sign of an even greater disillusionment. The presumptive power enjoyed by a family is beginning to run its course. With every generation, there is a sense of diminishment, and Robert Vadra does not help. The declining fortunes of Rahul Gandhi as a potential political force points to the poverty of the future, as far as the family goes. On its part the dynasty too seems to be taking its legacy for granted, regarding more as a tiresome burden than a challenging responsibility. In the avoidance of accountability and its desire to exercise power from behind the scenes, it reveals a strong lack desire to lead the country decisively.

The Nehru-Gandhi label offers an unwitting mirror to the Indian public, where it is increasingly able to see the absurdity of its infatuation with a family brand. Increasingly, the power vested in the family today has more to do with the compulsions of the Congress, which would fall apart without it, than with the hold its members have over the popular imagination. While electoral fortunes can be fickle and the expected loss of power in 2014 by itself might be part of a cyclical game , perhaps this time there is reason to believe that the days of India's ruling dynasty are over. Both India and the dynasty might just have got too tired of each other.