The revolts against Messrs Chavan and Gogoi are particularly instructive. While Mr Gogoi may well still be the most popular state-level leader in Assam, Mr Chavan never had much of a mass base, but was parachuted in by the central leadership, ostensibly to try and clean up a notoriously corrupt state administration. As the party goes in for a state election that it might well lose, the cry to replace Mr Chavan with a new face went up; unsurprisingly, the central leadership refused to accept that demand. It is easy to see why - after all, Mr Chavan cannot really be blamed for the debacle in Maharashtra. But the fact remains that Mr Rane, who has long wanted to be chief minister, might well be able to lead a re-election campaign better than Mr Chavan. A vibrant political party surely should allow such decisions to be made locally.
And here is where, in the end, the Congress' leadership, and particularly its vice-president, Rahul Gandhi, must take responsibility. Mr Gandhi has often spoken in favour of internal democracy in the Congress party. He is right. Sadly, some state committees - such as those in Haryana and Maharashtra - have not signed up to his primaries idea. But he must keep on plugging away at it. However, he has clearly failed to take this to its logical conclusion. Chief ministers, as leaders of the Congress in the assemblies, should be elected by the party's own legislators. This way, dissidence will be funnelled into open debate, and find its own cure. The politician with support will win; the others will have to wait, or leave. In the absence of this basic norm for selecting leaders, Mr Gandhi's claims to desire democracy from below will appear to be nothing but humbug - after all, a CM with majority support from her legislators could thumb her nose at the Gandhis with impunity.