Accompanied by firecrackers from Congress party workers and chased by a long line of photojournalists and reporters, Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi returned from an almost two-month-long "sabbatical". Where Mr Gandhi went and what he did on his time there are irrelevant, and so the Congress's spokespersons should waste less breath on insisting that it is a private matter. What is not a private matter is that Mr Gandhi's return means that the overdue action to return some coherence to a confused and divided party must be taken. It was widely speculated that the political subtext to Mr Gandhi's disappearance was that the party remained unable to come to any conclusion about how to handle any transition of power from Sonia Gandhi to her son. This likelihood was underlined when former Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit spoke out earlier this week in favour of Ms Gandhi retaining control for the moment. The uproar following Ms Dikshit's remarks only enhanced the perception that there is an unhealthy code of silence about the Congress's problems within the party.
Mr Gandhi should note that the Budget session saw a relatively energised Congress in his absence. The party cooperated with the government on some major legislation, to its credit. And it found a political cause in the proposed amendments to the land acquisition law, which it - like others in opposition - saw as a golden opportunity to paint the government as "anti-farmer". There is not much truth to that accusation, but it is politically salient nevertheless - as the prime minister's own public outreach to farmers after the amendments' introduction suggests. Mr Gandhi tried to make land acquisition his own issue in the past - at Niyamgiri and at Bhatta-Parsaul - and so had little excuse for absence as the Congress began an agitation on the issue. But even in his absence, the agitation clearly got some traction.
The Congress party itself must recognise that it cannot use Mr Gandhi and his family as a crutch forever - especially when the crutch itself is becoming so weak, in political terms, that it can take very little weight. The party needs a coherent platform that is both responsible and allows itself to take advantage of being in opposition; and if it finds one, the need for a charismatic leader, of the kind that Mr Gandhi manifestly is not, decreases. Now that he has returned, Mr Gandhi should help his party detail this platform. And Ms Gandhi and Mr Gandhi should perhaps turn over the day-to-day working of the party to a board of competent Congress leaders. That might help the party look ahead with anticipation for better prospects.
