Aditi Phadnis: Still an enigma

PLAIN POLITICS

Which is the real Sonia Gandhi? The one who giggles a great deal, has a dry self-deprecatory humour and can only gaze with wonder at geodesic domes in Iceland (as she did while travelling to the US via Iceland in 2001)?

Or the uncommunicative, wooden personality who listens to everyone patiently, but is described as "vindictive" and "diabolical" by those who've had reasons to cross swords with her recently? Or the saintly personality who had everything but gave it all up ?

A bit of everything, say Congressmen. While the Congress defeat in the assembly elections in 2003 brought out an unexpected combative streak in Gandhi, the 2004 general elections has brought forth a much more relaxed, better-put-together Gandhi.

The muscles in her neck stand out in tension now only when she knows she is being emotionally blackmailed "" she said as much to MPs at the meeting of the Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) where she announced her resignation from the post of chief.

She has become confident enough to handle the press on her own "" she has had four dinner meetings with the media, has given one-on-one interviews in which she has spoken of local, not national issues, and has addressed hundreds of public meetings, many without a written script.

Jairam Ramesh's answer for this change is that earlier, there was a gap between the public and the private Gandhi. This space between the persona on public view and the one she really is, has narrowed during this election.

Because, even for a politician, it is hard to be one thing in public and another in private; she was always tense earlier about whether she was saying/doing the right thing. Now she's confident of being accepted as she really is, and therefore, much more comfortable with herself in her public skin.

In the world of true lies of Indian politics, where the image is everything, Gandhi is trying to re-fashion her image and extrapolate it with the sort of person she is.

A minuscule minority of people know how much she's capable of deflating egos, sometimes at her own expense. It was something she had reserved for her immediate family. But now, partymen are beginning to savour it.

It was suggested to her that she favoured a Japanese management style: wide consultations, respect of tradition, accommodation of contrary views.... "That's another way of saying I do this because I don't know what I want to do and want others to tell me what I should do," she observed.

In her interview to newspaper editor and friend Vir Sanghvi, she was asked about her foreign origins. Very gently, she reminded Indians that the Mayor of Orbassano, her home town, was actually a shaven Sikh.

Elsewhere, she was asked about how she felt at being a Roman Catholic. "I can't remember when I went to church. It must have been when I was in high school," she exclaimed.

In her last speech in the Lok Sabha, during the motion of no-confidence, she pounced with great glee on the phrase "Mungeri Lal ke haseen sapne" and while talking about the Women's Reservation Bill, she charged the government with having betrayed all women "even an ardent votary of the Bill in your own party "" Sushmaji". Swaraj didn't expect this thrust, devised by Sonia all by herself.

All this may not be scintillating wit, but is certainly a progression on Gandhi when she took over the party. The real evidence of Gandhi, the politician, came with her "renunciation" of the prime ministership that has prompted fans to equate her with Mahatma Gandhi and Gautam Buddha.

She became CPP chief and within two days, resigned from the post to offer it to a colleague. So what happened in those two days that changed her mind ?

Partymen say she had been working on variations on the theme for the last two or three years. When she went to the US in June 2001, in response to persistent questioning by Aziz Haniffa of the India Abroad newspaper on whether she would accept the prime ministership of India, she said: "There is no shortage of capable people in the Congress."

Six months ago at a meeting in Mumbai, she said she was not in politics for power. In Mumbai four weeks ago, she said, admittedly prompted by Harkishan Singh Surjeet, that the prime minister would be decided by the allies after the election.

Would Gandhi's gesture have been the same if the party had won 250 seats ? This is a moot question. It is tempting to dismiss the move as a political gimmick aimed at getting mileage for herself while ensuring the prime ministership was kept warm for her son, thus securing the dynasty. The government would have hobbled along, with others taking the blame for the taint.

And maybe when the real Gandhi does stand up, she will tell us, with brutal honesty that somewhere deep down, this was a consideration when she took her decision. But until then we have to look at the evidence.

Her letter of "renunciation" was written by her "" and not by any speechwriter "" on April 17. Just two other people saw the draft "" her two children.

It became public only at six in the evening on April 18 when Jairam Ramesh and Ambika Soni were asked to make 200 copies, after Gandhi persisted in her resignation despite pressure from the Congress and allies.

So what does that make her "" diabolical politician or just an anxious mother who wanted to be there for her children? Because perception is the reality, currently Gandhi's image is that of Mother India.

But with dual poles of power, a map of India that is still largely saffron and the massive challenge of a slew of assembly elections in the near future, events in the very near future will tell us which is the real Sonia Gandhi "" politician or saint.