 Welcome to Brown University. This is a special event broadcast live to worldwide audiences. My name is Ashutosh Varshne. I'm director for the Center for Contemporary South Asia and professor of political science here at Brown University at its Watson Institute. And it's my great pleasure to welcome Rahul Gandhi to our audiences. Rahul Gandhi has been a member of parliament in India, Lok Sabha since 2004. He represented the constituency of Amiti in the North Indian state of UP in 2004 2009 and 2016. And since 2019, he's been representing why not constituency in the South Indian state of Kerala. He has been president of the Congress Party 2017 to 2019 and before that was vice president of the Congress Party. A party as most of you know, has ruled India since 1947 with the exception of 1977 to 80, 1989 to 91, 1998 to 2004. And since 2014, it's not been empowered in Delhi. Rahul Gandhi was educated in three countries in India at St. Columbus, Dune School and St. Stephens. In the United States at Harvard and Rollins College. And in the UK at Cambridge University. He took his Enfield in Development Studies from Trinity College of Cambridge. Our event will have three segments. The first segment will be my conversation with him for half an hour each segment will have half an hour. The second segment will feature a faculty panel from Brown for half an hour and four of our colleagues from different departments will join the conversation. And the last 30 minute segment is for students, there is a student panel. Again, from different disciplines, which will be posing questions to to Rahul Gandhi. This is an international event we are in the zoom and YouTube universe. Some of our panelists are joining us from from elsewhere not from Boston or Providence, the two towns where the faculty lives, Brown faculty lives. Most of it, of course, in Providence, but some of us live in Boston. I live in Boston. I'm joining you from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Prena Singh, my political science colleague will be joining us from Stanford, California. She is spending a semester there on a fellowship. Leela Gandhi, my colleague in the English department will be joining us from London, UK. And she is actually teaching the semester teaching her Brown class from London, that's possible in the zoom universe. And two of our students panelists will be joining us from India one from Shimla and run from Delhi. So let's start. Welcome, Rahul. Thank you. It's a great pleasure to host you and hope there will be an opportunity to host you in person as well in future. Let me start with a remark, a remark that caught my eye. You made two weeks back at Cornell. You argued that politics in India, especially electoral politics or politics in general is no longer a fight for power. Politics in India have become a fight for India, not just a fight for power. Now we noted in November during during the last presidential election in the United States that that Biden Joe Biden now president of the United States made a claim which had roughly similar properties and you'll tell us whether your claim is different. He argued that the, the election of 2019 2020 was not about a change in power in Washington. It was about the soul of America. Is your claim, Rahul, and may I call you Rahul during this conversation. Is your claim similar to Biden's claim or substantially different. Well, India is many different diverse viewpoints. Different languages, different cultures, different histories, different ideas, and modern India to me is essentially a ongoing negotiation between those ideas those cultures. And what Gandhi did what our founding fathers did is they created the architecture for that negotiation. And the centerpiece of that architecture of course is one man one vote and the Constitution, and then from that idea of one man one vote and the Constitution arose many independent institutions which guarantee the negotiation. It's very obvious to me that those institutions are what allow the negotiation between our identities between our languages between our culture between our states to occur. What you see is a determined attack on those institutions and a capture of those institutions. There are elements of that taking place in the United States. But because I'm nobody to comment on the United States, I don't understand the United States as well as my American friends there would, but I get the sense that the American institutions are showing much more resilience than the Indian ones. I get the sense that the American system is actually counting this onslaught better than our system. To me the negotiation between these states breaks down, then the idea of India breaks down before 2014. It was brought on institutions by the RSS by similar forces, concentration of capital you can say, but it was subversive. It was being silently done it was done in Madhya Pradesh it was done in states that they ran it was done through the Shishu Mandir through their schools. It was done by siphoning off public funds into their, their schools, but it wasn't out in the open. In 2014, it is out in the open, it's legitimized, and it's across the board. And to me, that's why it's an attack in on India. See, I represent a part of that negotiation as do all other political players. As you know we represent 20% of the Congress party represents 20% of our population, other opposition parties together represent a much bigger chunk than the Prime Minister and the BJP, but we're not given that room for negotiation. We're not given that room for conversation. That was changed. And as a politician I require institutional support. I simply cannot operate without it. It's a fantasy if somebody thinks that I can operate or a democracy can operate without independent institutions that we don't have anymore. That's why classified as an assault on India. Are you in particular referring to the judiciary or, or some other independent institutions. Every single institution, there's not a single institution that is not under this type of assault. I mean, to give you to give you some nuance. My mic is switched on by in switched off in parliament in the middle of while I'm giving a speech it switched off. Right, so the essence of parliament is that I'm allowed to speak. Right the essence of parliament is that when I'm speaking the country can see what I'm saying. That the TV is showing what is going on in parliament, the TV doesn't show what's going on in parliament. Right. So whole, yeah, so whole variety of institutions. No, I'll elaborate. So the conversation within parliament. BJP MPs cannot have a open discussion in parliament. They tell me that they're like, I'm going to tell you what to say. It's a straightforward top down thing they cannot go one BJP MP went in a meeting with the Prime Minister and raised his hand said I don't agree with you and you know the through mouth. It's the same with the judiciary. It's the same with the press. So it's a constant onslaught. And that's that's where the problem is. And the, the idea of India that you are speaking about is essentially built on diversity and expression of that diversity. Right. Yes, it is built on diversity and expression of that diversity but more importantly it is a negotiation between those ideas. It is a active dynamic constant negotiation. And that negotiation requires structures for that negotiation to take place. Okay, so you're defining there. When the British was giving India the question was transfer of power to whom that was the challenge who do you transfer power to. And it was the Congress Party that created the environment for the transfer of power. The British were asking a legitimate question in the 20s. They was okay to whom do we transfer power, not to the Maharajas obviously, because the Maharajas were not India. The Maharajas were a divided India, which was at war with itself. So the answer to that question came from Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress Party. They said, okay. Yes, to whom to the people of India, how through the vote, how through parliament, how through the constitution and then further development how through these institutions that will protect the voice of the people of India. It's not just a question of diversity. It's a question of active negotiation taking place between that diversity. Okay. As a lot of people have noted. This has been an international commentary on this on this matter. Through of the leading agencies, non governmental agencies in the world that rate or assess democratic health in the world. The freedom house and the varieties of democracy Institute in Sweden, which has risen to prominence of late. Both have downgraded Indian democracy. The house calls India now partly free, not unfree partly free. And that is after 30 odd years that India has has been downgraded. We them Institute in Sweden uses a stronger term. India has the largest democracy and I'm citing now the largest democracy in the world has become an electoral autocracy. Electoral autocracy is the term it has used, not yet a full autocracy electoral autocracy. I have two questions. One, do you agree with this assessment the assessment of freedom house they're roughly in the same direction they're slightly different but roughly they're both talking about a steep decline a steep democratic decline in India. I agree with that with that assessment. And second, we them Institute following political science and its own research has also said something which people have not noted yet and, and on which I think we should seek your comment. That when policies, democratic policies start attacking civil liberties, and then civil society institutions, and then independent institutions. Then the next step, normally, there is no law about this, there is a tendency they're talking about the next step after an attack on civil liberties and attack on civil society and attack on independent institutions. The next step is typically an attack on the integrity of elections and set itself. So, are you the second question after the first question which is about do you agree with the these two agencies. The second question is, are you concerned that the integrity of elections might also be attacked before long. These institutions, of course, have their view, they are foreign institutions, and frankly, we don't need a stamp from them. But directionally what they're saying is correct. I would add one thing, I would say they're much behind the curve. I think the situation is actually much worse than the magic. First, second, again, you cannot separate electoral democracy from institutional frameworks. Right. The election is not simply people going and putting a pressing a button on a voting machine. An election is about narrative. An election is about institutions that make sure that the framework in the country is operating properly. Election is about a judiciary that is being fair. The election is about a debate that is taking place in in parliament. Right. So you need those things for the vote vote to count, you know, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi used to have elections. They used to win them. They were actually voting. It wasn't that they weren't voting. But there was no institutional framework to protect that vote. To me, to me, India is going to find out that it's actually much further down the curve than it thinks and that outsiders think. I see. So, so if anything you're saying freedom house and we them Institute are behind the curve, the situation is much worse. Yeah, and I'm saying I'm saying the sequence that you first attack this then you attack the vote. I'm saying you don't need to attack the vote in with modern technology. If, if you control WhatsApp, and you control Facebook, you don't need to attack the world. Why would you do something like that? Leave it alone. You control the narrative anyway. The head of Facebook in India was everybody knows is a BJP person. So one girl recently left the Congress Party went to Facebook. Right. They found out she's Congress. She had a job contract. Sorry, you can't come. She's crying at my door. So you know, this is it's you don't need to do that. I think they might do that they might actually say dispense with this thing, but you can you can destroy an electoral democracy in the 21st century if you've got Facebook if you've got WhatsApp if you've got financial dominance and if you control the institutions why wouldn't you let people just go and vote. Why wouldn't you just just keep that pretence. No problem. Why does it harm you. Okay, so the elections can become simply a legitimating device rather than a method of selecting governments that that that we can which is what I mean, we've seen it in the 20th century right we've seen, we've seen these these guys coming to power just with this legitimization of the vote I mean there's no reason Saddam Hussein wanted needed the vote, but it was like okay let's do it and just let's just do it why not. Yeah, my third question is yeah, sorry, it's by the way the stated the if you look at the strategy employed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Right. And the strategy employed by the RSS. It's implicit in what they're doing. It's in there right they're basically saying capture power through the electoral process capture the institutions, and then the electoral process is relevant. Okay. My third question is about foreign policy and international relations. I've noted and rightly so that China is now a new global superpower. And certainly in the United States, but in much of the Western world, the notion that there is a serious rivalry, emerging between the United States on the one hand, as the leading superpower and China is the emerging superpower that rivalry is seriously underway now. What are the implications of China's rise to global, a global superpower status what are its implications for India according to you. I mean, again, China's rise has been taking place for some time now. I mean, for example, the success the Chinese have had in manufacturing is causing some of our political tremors. Right. The, the, the Trump supporters, a lot of the Trump supporters and a lot of the supporters of the BJP, they are Trump supporters and BJP supporters because of large scale joblessness. That's why then the failure of manufacturing so to speak. So China's rise has been affecting our politics for some time now, and it affects it in multiple ways. For example, if you go into the details of Karnataka politics, Karnataka politics was blown apart because of iron ore exports to China. Right. So it affects it at the state level it affects it at the national level that's that's one, one aspect of it. The second aspect of it is the Chinese clearly have a strategy. It's very clear. And the strategy is take the planet back to a terrestrial vision. And it's a economic strategy. It has a military strategy but it isn't essentially an economic strategy what they're presenting to people who are looking at the Belt and Road is prosperity. Right. And they're putting a lot of money behind that prosperity. In a sense, in a sense, they're doing what the United States did post World War, giving a lot of money to Italy to Germany to France to these countries and saying look, we will, we will help you with a few rights. There is no counter strategy to that. So we are, we work with Americans we have us, we have a partnership with Americans we are two democracies, we have a lot in common, but there is no clear strategy of prosperity between the United States and her allies, I don't see it. So to me, that is something that has to be figured out. And if you're going to, of course, you don't want to go into a conflict, but if you're going to go into a successful competition, you need to have a strategy of prosperity. In other words, the primary plank of Indian strategy towards China, according to you should be economic, a search for economic prosperity policies that that promote economic prosperity would be the best way to deal with China rather than something else. It's, it's, it's, it's one step further than that. We have two problems. Well, we have many problems, but centrally, there is an issue with the Chinese rise but there is a massive issue with job creation in India with our economic situation in India, we have to resolve that problem. And I'm not one who believes that we can resolve that problem through the services route. I just don't think it's possible. So what does it mean, it means that it means that it is a strategy for the reinvigoration of India. You strengthen India, and you will solve both problems. The manufacturing you're saying labor intensive manufacturing is the way to go, not services. It's not, it's not simple black and white. It is, we have released hundreds of millions of people from our villages, they have come to our cities. We need to give them something to do, we need to give them a vision. However we do it we got to do it. We got to do it by transforming agriculture we got to do it by transforming manufacturing we got to improve our competitiveness in services but we are facing a catastrophic job problem. And, and it is related. If India cannot solve its job problem, then India certainly cannot have a global position certainly cannot take on the challenges that are coming from the Chinese. And that is not to say that is not to say you don't need a military strategy of course you do. Okay, and my last question in my half hour is about 2019 elections. In this the in December 2018, your party won three states. And the narrative in the country was Rajasthan multiple nations at this guy, that this guy was a huge victory. And the narrative by by January of 2019 was that Congress party was going to be a serious contender for power. It may not get 273 seats, but it will certainly increase its share of seats very substantially and pose a challenge to the existing ruling party. May 2019, five months later, four and four to five months later, when the results came, your party went up by only a few seats, whereas BJP enhance its majority and hence its vote by 7% and your vote was 19.5 19.6. BJP's vote became is twice as large as your vote in 2019 May. What changed between December 18 and May 2019, transforming the political landscape electoral landscape so much that you were unable to gain much from your victories in December 2018 at the state level. There are our Chhattisgarh party. And I agree with them on Chhattisgarh for sure, simply cannot explain how we go from a solid two third victory to two seats, they just cannot explain. Right. And I find it very hard to believe that something like that happened. In Rajasthan right we we had a solid fight, and suddenly we go to zero seats. Now, it's surprising to me it's not easy to believe. Now there are a couple of arguments that people make, and I can see some aspects of those arguments right of massive polarization across North India. I can see it, but it doesn't take me to two seats in Chhattisgarh. Massive polarization combined with so total media dominance, financial dominance, Facebook, WhatsApp, social media dominance, yeah, could be. But, but those are some of the reasons you see again. If you look at the amount of money the BJP is throwing at elections, compare them to what we are doing or what other political parties are doing. And no comparison. It's a ratio one is 10. Right. More. You look at the media. The Prime Minister is 24 seven in the media. Nobody else is there. No other leaders on the television. So there's total domination of that stuff. And then, in addition to that, you also have domination of institutions. So to me it is massive concentration of political and financial power that is sitting behind this machine. And that explains the 2019. I mean, to a substantial extent you are. I still, I still don't understand the Chhattisgarh going from a sweep. You know, with a, with a solid set of candidates to two seats, I still can't explain it, but the explanations that are given to me, I'm like, okay, maybe. Okay. Thank you, Rahul my half hour is up so let's bring the faculty panel in the first. First colleague of mine who's going to ask you a question is Andrew Foster. He is the George and Nancy Parker professor of economics and Andrew. You are on on screen. Right. Yes, well, thank you for giving me this opportunity. So, I wanted to sort of recognize you've called for the repeal of the farm laws and and but also note that there's a considered view that rural poverty in India will remain a major issue as long as there are so many small and marginal farmers and as long as the supply chains operate they do so I'm wondering if you can give us an alternative vision both of sort of how transformation is likely to happen or should happen over the five and 10 years and what kinds of policies will help make that happen. So, what we're against for first one we agree that a reform of the agricultural system is required. We also feel that any reform of the agricultural system has to come out of a conversation with the stakeholders of that system. Who are the stakeholders of that system farmers, producers, people who manage that system, etc. Our first problem with the farm laws is that they are, there is no conversation that has taken place with the stakeholders they're not even explained what is happening. The second thing is, the thing you have to look at is the producer and you have to empower the producer and make him efficient, make make his negotiation more effective, etc, etc. Here there's a full scale assault on the producer. So literally now the producer is going to be negotiating with Mr. Adani and Mr. Ambani with no, with nobody in between, right. I mean you know the three laws, the first law basically says no farmers markets. The second law says as much hoarding as you want and the third law says you can't go in contested in court. So it is clearly an assault on the farm structure. So we don't agree with that and we think that it is going to be extremely destructive. I mean, I feel that the BJP simply will not have the power to push these things through. And if they do forcibly do it, we are going to head into some serious social turbulence. Right. Indian agriculture, as you saw in, in the corona is sort of a shock absorber for a lot of these people. It says it acts as a place for them to gain respite. So that role is critical in Indian agriculture. Right. So how do you, how do you think about it. Yes, you think about supply chains. Yes, you think about storage. Yes, you think about cold storage systems, but you think about it by empowering the producer by by involving the producer. By involving the producer in the conversation. And that can be done. It's not a, it's not a complicated thing. Right. I think you will, you will need to also transform our agricultural system from a jobs perspective. So you, you will also have to bring in technology bring in those nodes into that system so that you can give I think agriculture millions and millions of jobs to people in India if it's done properly. So we're not arguing for no reform of the agricultural system, we're arguing for a reform, but a reform that carries the stakeholder and listens to the stakeholder and involves the stakeholder. I mean, there are many successes, the biggest success in India, agricultural success in India is Amul, right. And that is essentially that came out of conversation with with farmers now I'm not saying you can replicate Amul all across the country, but the spirit of Amul, where you say okay you we value what you're doing. We understand that you're struggling. Now let's have a conversation about how we can, we can make this thing work. That's our thing about it. So, I mean I think a particular concern would be the sort of small and marginal landowners and whether whether the kinds of sort of technological advances that you mentioned are going to be feasible for many of them to the extent that they environment sort of larger scale. So is there a way to sort of address that problem and those are the people probably most. There are models that are models in Maharashtra and different ways of doing things that would do that. The main question to ask is okay, you carry out this assault on agriculture. And now you have large scale corporate farming you have one guy who's controlling the wheat market. Oh yeah I think you know he's controlling basically grain in India he controls all the silos he controls all the pot you've decimated the farmers. Okay, now what do they do. Can they get a job in the agricultural system. No they can't. Can they get a job in the manufacturing system. No they can't. What are they going to do. So what you're seeing in Punjab right now, if the laws go through, you will see that at a massive scale. It'll come it'll come slowly, but when it comes, then the negotiation is not possible. So the negotiation is, you have to see if you look if you think about it India is going through a transformation it's going through from a rural to an urban transformation, and in a sense the imagination is changing. So you have to help people through that imagination. You can't just say sorry boss now you have this imagination I'm going to explode it for you. And oh by the way, figure out your imagination on your own. It's, it's the same thing they did with GST right we are for GST, but negotiate the thing, go through the conversation and, and, and once you're ready with the conversation and you're all everything's ready to go then do it. Right. It's the, it's the idea. See when, if you, if you ask me, it is massive concentration of capital, five or seven people, a massive content concentration of political power, which gives the illusion that you don't have to negotiate with them. But then when you put the thing into practice, the power of these forces becomes very apparent. And then you're suddenly like oh my God what just happened. Right. So, so that's the problem and I don't think it's simply a Narendra Modi issue. I actually think that the negotiation within the Indian system is struggling. It is, we are having problems with that negotiation that I spoke about we are, we are technology communications. We are, we are having difficulty maneuvering. And I think, and I think one response to it is Modi and RSS. Right. Imagine, imagine Europe. India is much better compared to Europe than to a United States. We have many languages. We have many different types of people. Now imagine if you try to run Europe forcibly through Belgium. What would happen. Well, Hitler tried to do it right. Sure. Hitler tried Hitler basically said you listen I can run Europe I don't need to talk to the French I don't need to talk to the Italians I'm going to run Europe you see what happened to him. I'm saying that a better imagination about rural India will be a negotiated imagination. Otherwise, I'm saying that the only imagination is a negotiated imagination. I think there is no other imagination right if you, if you stop the negotiation if you destroy the architecture of negotiation. You don't have a country. When I go to Tamil Nadu, the, when I'm going and giving a speech in Tamil Nadu it's part of the negotiation. I'm going there and they're saying okay, you know what is the contract that Tamil Nadu is going to have with the rest of India. Right. When you that's that's it's embedded in the system. If you attack that you will not realize, but the blowback that will come will be unstoppable. So that's, that's how I see it. Thank you Andrew. Thank you very much. Andrew, one more thing I'll say. If you look at what happened to Pakistan. This is exactly what happened to Pakistan. The negotiation between the ethnicities of Pakistan was dominated by the Punjabis. And the institutional structure that did it was the Pakistani army. Right. And then you had you a democratic framework crumbled, because the only way now, once you've broken the negotiating framework, the only way to keep it together is force. Thank you very much. Thank you Andrew. Let's turn to Leela Gandhi. She's joining us from London as I said, John Hawks professor of the humanities and English Leela. Mr Gandhi, on the heels of that beautiful thought about negotiated imagination. The concept of Swaraj self rule was of course a rallying cry for the Congress Party in the early decades of the 20th century. It was a slogan for independence from Imperial rule. At the source, say in MK Gandhi's hint Swaraj. It expressed a highly original ethical and spiritual vision of Indian democracy, as one in which simply the powerful give up the right to rule over and dominate or press injure. The powerless. Therefore, men over women. The Hindu majority over various religious minorities, rich over poor and of course the list is very long indeed. So my question is, what does Swaraj mean, if anything, to Congress leadership in the 20th century, and to you personally. The, the idea of India, if you look at if you look at how India was put together and modern India. And the role of Gandhiji in that, bringing India together. He was a essentially in the conversation in the negotiation of power between these systems. Very interesting position. His position was, in a sense, it's a Indian philosophical tradition. I don't actually exist. I am dead. Meaning, I have, I have no, I have no game in this conversation right so he, he in a sense, if you say he became shunyata. Right, and then that conversation actually started. Without that thing, without Gandhi's attack on himself. India could not have been structured the negotiation wouldn't have begun. Right. So, so the idea of India itself required a, a introspection into the self and then an attack on to the self. And frankly, if you want to keep India together you got to do that. If you don't do that. If there is no, if there is no shunyata in the negotiation, then it's not going to work. That's what the Congress brings to the table. Right. The idea right now for example, do you think today there are there are 20 people who are a group of 20 people who are who have a different view on the Congress Party right. Do you think they could exist in the BJP. Do you think they could exist in the BSP. Do you think they could exist in the TMC. No, they cannot exist in any other party, except the Congress and the Congress is look, we don't agree with you. But the negotiation cannot stop you. It has to go on that's the nature of the Congress and I see it in the organization every day. Right. Now, of course it has lost the depth of Gandhi is not there. The understanding of Gandhi in air that's not there but that comes with with the force that you're fighting that I mean Gandhi would not have been Gandhi without the force that he was fighting. You've said some you've said something really extraordinarily beautiful, but I think this is you and not necessarily the Congress Party and you've replaced my idea of Swaraj with the beautiful idea of show me that and I want you out on this. No, no, no, you'd be surprised. You'd be very, very surprised. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Congress workers who have this idea hundreds and hundreds problem is they're not in power. But they're there. I can tell you I can tell you a name after name after name after name, who is sitting there and literally doing Harakiri right political. He's eating himself. It's the opposite of the is the opposite of the RSS this is not a new thing. I think I'm the G came out with a new idea. It's not a new idea. It's a very old idea in India. It's a, it's a regurgitation of some of those ideas but the and and in hence what I was what he's saying is that Western civilization is not looking into itself. It refuses to look into itself. And Indian civilization has the capacity every now and then to look into itself very deeply. And to give up power and to give up power to say no you look, you might give up power you might not give up power Gandhi didn't. So, if you take a blunt view of power, you can say Gandhi gave up power, but if you take a sophisticated view of power Gandhi used his part to give us the Constitution. Right. Power is not simply that oh no now I have to become an MLA or an MP this isn't this is a gross misunderstanding. Right. Power is what power is the ability to influence. Are you telling me Gandhi G gave up the ability to influence. He's still influencing. He's influencing me. Right, but the essence of Swaraj and which I think any modern vision of India has to have. And my biggest problem with the BJP and the RSS is they have no capacity to look inside themselves. I was in parliament one day. And I was reading this, this book on the open issues. And I got an RSS guy who I just walked past him and, and he said, you know, he had said something in parliament to three days back and I said look, look, it's written here. Look what's written here. This is against what you said in parliament. And he looks at it and he says, you don't understand. I think you do not have the capacity to understand this I'm the only person who has the capacity to understand this. Right. Meaning, I will not. I will not look into myself for 30 seconds. My problem with the Prime Minister is that that you are, you are cracking the negotiation between this, these massive forces, because you refuse to attack your sense of self. I'm very happy with you because you attack my sense of self every morning. So I love it because it gives me, in a sense, it's a very strange thing. No, I just think that my God, this is amazing. I think, you know, when you're when you're facing a political force. People don't understand the nature of that thing. People think, Oh my God, they're attacking him. They're attacking him. They're attacking him. No, they're helping me. They're helping me refine. They're helping me understand. I could not have this conversation I'm having with you today 10 years ago. Who did it? The BJP RSS did it. So thank you. Thank you. Let's. No, but just to conclude, what Gandhi was saying, and he was saying it to everybody. Stop and look at what you're doing. When you just 30 seconds stop and just ask yourself what I'm doing is this correct. And what he was saying to Indians when they were faced by the British is you are enslaved, not because the British are powerful, but because you're refusing to look into yourself. And that's all he taught us. Thank you. Love that. Thank you. Well, let's turn to, we have 10 more minutes for the 10 more minutes for the faculty panel. Patrick, you have five minutes and Prerna will have five minutes Patrick Heller. Lynn cross professor of sociology. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Gandhi for being with us today. I want to pick up on this theme of negotiation, which I find absolutely fascinating. And you've, you've talked about negotiation as the democratic process in of itself and defending the range of institutions that are foundational to any democracy that really does allow for negotiation and deliberation. I'm also obviously negotiating India's identity and self imagination in Dutva versus the more pluralistic vision that that we associate with Democratic India. There's a third negotiation we haven't touched on yet, which is a negotiation over how society's resources are being distributed. And I want to take you back to the UPA and the 10 years that Congress was in power, and looking back on it now, I think we've all come to realize increasingly that the great legacy of the UPA governments was building the basic architecture of the Indian welfare system, a truly remarkable set of interventions. And so I have two related questions. One, given just how successful and Rega and and and the other welfare and rights based interventions were were and how encompassing they were. Why didn't this translate into more electoral success. How do we explain. Very profound question. Yeah, and and so in part also it was was the BJP's victory in 2014 kind of an elite reaction and an uppercast upper class reaction against this expansion of rights. And then just very briefly, how would you evaluate the BJP's track record on on the welfare state and on on social rights in general. So what we understood in 2004 2005 that large numbers of our people were transforming their imagination. So they were going from a rural imagination to a completely new space. It's not understood by somebody who hasn't made this transition. But if you spend time working in that space you will realize this is a terrifying thing. This is not an easy thing to do. And it generates tremendous anger fear, a panic, and we understood that we have to put a floor under these people as they make this transition. So we have to we have to do something so that this change of imagination happens across a bridge. They don't need to just jump right that was not a guy that was right to food that was all those paradigms. We got a massive reaction. Because this was a cost on certain elites, right so so farmers didn't like that right. So what did we do as the Congress does the Congress searches for pain you know people say left or right. You know, it looks a pain, and it manages pain. So we did not a farmer's felt pain, we did the 72,000 crore farmer release package. That's what we managed that pain, but the, the concentration of power that has happened. The concentration of political power through the RSS concentration of economic power through the 5710 crony capitalist essentially translated into massive political power crosses across the board. And, and it just overwhelmed all that of course in 2014 we had a problem, which was that the vision that you're talking about was running out of steam. It was it was actually a 1990s vision repurposed and with some additions in 2004, and it worked very well for eight years and I remember. I was with one of the my colleagues in 2000 and I think it was 11 and we were driving and we said to each other this this this vision is not working anymore. It's just, it's not working. Right. So we came to the end of a vision, which is normal right. So we got hit with the economic collapse 2000 that the big collapse, then we got, we got caught with the sort of at the end of our vision, and then we had this massive shockwave coming. The RSS has been at work for many years, trying to infiltrate and capture the institutions, and you know, they've spent a lot of time and effort doing it. So that culminated in, in 2000 began in 2014 and now they're putting in sort of their, their people. Thank you. But my guess is if you don't do it, which the BJP is not doing. You will enter a zone of mass politics, which will be expensive, costly, but you will, you will go there. Thank you. Let's turn now finally to Prena Singh Mahatma Gandhi associate professor of political science and international studies. Prena joining us from Stanford. Hello. Thank you so much, Mr Gandhi. I think today you've spoken very thoughtfully very powerfully about two things that I wanted to pick up on the first was about this control of the narrative by the BJP. And the second about this assault on institutions. And so as has come out in your conversation, especially with Professor Gandhi today, you're putting forward this secular inclusive idea of India, which stands in stark contrast to the Hindu nationalist idea. And, and I had a question about the way in which you're putting out this alternate idea. And, in particular, the role picking up on your theme of the assault on institutions about your vision of the institution that you are a part of and that you exert some control over which is the Congress party. As a political scientist, when I followed the trajectory of the Congress, I learned in a kind of politics of India class that you might take about something that happened to the Congress really beginning in the late 1960s, as Gandhi, which was the de institutionalization of the Congress and the personalization of power. And today you've spoken a lot about the role of the RSS and the shocker structure in the way in which the BJP operates is effective. And I think has as you just said in response to Professor Heller's question has been really instrumental in kind of spreading the message and indeed rooting the message of we might say, of Hindu nationalism among the people. So I was wondering, how would you think of the role of the Congress party, particularly because it was the institutionalized in the 1960s. One of the arguments that's put forward is that this cadre structure of of the organization as it enters the hinterland is what was what was destroyed or at least weakened. And so how are you thinking of the civil society the grassroots organizational structure of the Congress. What role does that play in the kind of spread of this alternate narrative. And secondly, the point about the personalization of power. This is definitely something that you've pointed out has happened in the BJP, but to what extent has it happened in the Congress and the police, the potential also the challenge of domestic politics. The Congress Party has never had a cat and it doesn't believe in a cat and the day the Congress Party has a cadre it becomes the BJP. The cadre is a person who puts out a particular message. He's a Pracharak. He puts out a particular ideology. That's not what a Congress worker does. A Congress worker manages a negotiation to fundamentally different things that this idea that there was a Congress Party that had these, you know, workers in brown shorts that used to do all this is just wrong, it has never existed. The Congress Party had were people coming out of these movements that were negotiating settlements and our big negotiator was Mahatma Gandhi, and then there was an error in others right. But the Congress has has never had a structure that goes out and puts across its message that's just not what we do. That's what the RSS does. That's what the BSP does. We don't need a cadre. We don't want the cadre. What we want is people who manage the who operate as the bridge between communities. Right. That's one. Second thing, the Congress in the split of the Congress was a ideological fight in the Congress. Which was one by the left. You can call it the left but it was one by a particular ideology in the Congress. The dismantling so to speak of the institutions of the Congress was essentially the right of center people leaving the idea that no one replace them is fantasy. Right. They were ours and our entire Congress operation in Karnataka. They were formidable politicians who replace those people. Right. Of course, Indra Gandhi had a role there. Right, but the notion that Congress is a Carter base party and there's these lines of people getting ready to put them as this is not what the Congress is it's a misunderstanding of the idea of the Congress I'll give you. And I learned this the hard way. So this is not something that came naturally here so the first, my first three or four years in the Congress I just used to sit there and be like what are these people doing. So we would sit there and they would just go on and on and on and on. Just, just, you know, and I would say that I would walk out and say what are you doing, why are these people just having this conversation ongoing conversation. And they just repeat what they were saying for one guy would say the second guy would say third guy would say I was like this is what is this going on. And then I realized to pay five or six years but I realized. That's exactly the point. It's of understanding correctly you're saying that there is a party organization but it's okay that it conducts it's not the Nazi party. It's not the RSS. It's, it's a different design. Right. I've got workers. What my workers do or our workers do is go into into an area where there is a conflict between Congress people and say what the RSS guy says are you shut up you do what we're telling you. That's what we do. We're negotiating system we're negotiating platform. Our problem is that the negotiation between communities in India has fractured. That's our problem. Right. When a when there is no negotiation taking place between the Hindu and the Muslim or the Sikh and the Hindu or the Tamil and the Bengali, we have a problem. Our problem is not an organizational problem. Our problem is that the negotiations broken. And we are, we can see that the negotiation is starting I'll tell you. I went to in prior to this 2014 election I went to Jamu and Kashmir. I went to Jamu delegations of Jamu people came and they said we're very angry with you and we're not going to vote for you. So I like find why he's like because you know we are just angry with you and you are sort of being partial to the Kashmiris. Fine. Next delegation I go to Srinagar delegation comes Kashmiris. And they look at me and say we're not voting for you. I say why they say why because you're being partial to the Jamu guys. So, right. That's the problem. Six months later they came back he's a Barney boundary. The job I said there's a problem I said what's the problem. The problem is that we have to have a conversation because nothing's happening without the conversation. And the same thing Kashmiris came and said you know there's a problem it was a problem we can't work without a conversation. This conversation stopped nothing's happening. So we are the conversation within India. We are chaotic. We are constant. We will get beaten by everybody because we are the conversation. Right. And our design is that. And what I'm saying to you here is that I'm worried that the conversation in India is stopping. And it's the systems that allow that conversation to take place are collapsing. And I know what happens in the Congress party when we stop the conversation in a small little place. So I don't want to think about what happens when that conversation stops between 1.3 billion people. And I think that the Congress party is facing in addition to the media dominance the Facebook WhatsApp and all this stuff. The good news is that we're learning and we are getting people who would never ever come and work with us to work with us. So there's a reinvigoration of that of that of that system taking place. It's painful, which is fine. But it's happening. I don't know if that explains explains it. This is a very thoughtful set of comments. Thank you. When I was when I first came into this, I went to a senior Congress leader and I said boss, what's going on? He said, what are you saying? He said, I've seen meetings of 48 hours. So this is nothing. He said, I haven't seen anything. So that of course happens within our system. So you never see it. So this is an argument that without a comprehensive conversation and negotiate negotiations between conversations. Congress party cannot function. That's what you're saying. Right. It is just that's the way it's structured. I'll tell you the, the story that crystallized this in my mind. That just bang, it just it just blew it up. I was 13 years old. And I went on a trip with my grandmother to Yugoslavia. And my sister and me and my mother and my grandmother went to see Tito's wife. And Tito's wife, this old lady had these two little puppies. We were playing with the puppies. My grandmother and my mother were talking to her and I could overhear the conversation. And my grandmother asked her, so how are you doing? And she says to me, I'm doing okay. She says to my grandmother. And then my grandmother says. How is Yugoslavia? And she looked at my grandmother and she said, Oh, Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore. So my grandmother said, but why? She says, it's what are you saying? And she said, well, because the relationship between the serve and the Croat is broken. Anyway, I had heard this and we were walking out and my mother asked my grandmother the question. And she said, Mummy, what is this woman saying? Like Yugoslavia is not broken. And my grandmother said, see the problem is that her husband was all powerful in Yugoslavia. And he's just died and she's not able to overcome that feeling that, you know, now her husband is not broken. So that's why she made the comment. Forgot about it. Then I was in Harvard in nineties and I put on one day the TV and I saw that CNN Yugoslavia civil war and I was like, Oh my God. What was the crux, the relationship between the Croat and the serve was broken. She saw it in 83. Six years ago. So all countries are negotiations. It's not only India. The United States is a negotiation. Right. Thank you. And yeah. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. No, thank you. They let's turn to our students. Is Bhanu joining us from Shimla? Or do we have Bhanu? Let's turn to Arushi. Arushi, are you here? Yeah, I am. Arushi, you'll be on screen shortly. Yeah. I had a question that relates to Arushi is a PhD student in economics. Yeah. I had a question that relates to Professor Patrick Heller's question. I was wondering why universal basic income, which you sort of hinted at in your response. Before in the form of Nye in Congress's election manifesto in 2019. Did not take off electorally as one would have hoped for. As I said. Total dominance of the instruments of narrative creation. Look at, look at the television. During the time. And see how many times. Prime Minister Modi was mentioned. And how many times Nye was mentioned. So it is. Massive financial. Sort of domination. And massive narrative control. Just. Go home. Put on the TV and look at the look at the time you see the Prime Minister on television versus the time you see opposition leaders on television. And that will give you the answer. I need a fair media to put my message across. I need a fair social media set up to put my message across. If I can't put my message across. Those are the instruments I have. Thank you, Arushi. Bhanu has joined us from Shimla. Bhanu your question. Bhanu Joshi is a PhD student in political science. Yeah. Hi, Rahul. Hello. Thank you for doing this. So my question is related to your comments about urban India. We're 35% of Indians. You know, now stay. So now the Congress party has never really thought of our cities towns and cusp as a key electoral constituency. Some research, including mine sort of suggests that your competitor, the BJP does much better if a constituency has a city or a town in it. So why doesn't Congress think about urban areas as being more empathetic to the Congress's sort of electoral calls beyond Indian cities is a key electoral role. Constituency. I also wanted to hear your thoughts on the state of urban citizens, particularly those on the margins or who are in the sense, the blood and sweat of the city. And now we also with the dread house migrants with children on their backs and and strapped onto luggage, walk back to the villages pointing to how inhospitable our cities are to those who build our cities, make it work. So I wanted to really hear your thoughts on why the Congress is not advocating for a radical overall for of change in imagination as you put it of the local urban state and welfare architecture. So to summarize, why is the Congress not excited about urban India as a electoral? No, it is it is excited about. It is excited about urban India. But the Congress, essentially, if you look at if you look at the role of the Congress in its post independence early days, it was arbitraging rural power. It was managing the negotiation in rural India. Between the farmers between the traders. That was what it was between the laborers. It was managing that negotiation. A lot of our leaders. Our rural leaders are problem in Gujarat, for example, is our leaders are predominantly rural. They understand very well how to do the rural politics. But there is a contradiction between rural politics and urban politics. So, so when you're when you're asking the question outside Mumbai, what are you going to do with water? My rural MLAs will say, listen, please send it to the fields. My urban MLAs will say, no, no, please don't send it to the field, send it to Mumbai. So there's that contradiction. We're in a transition phase as a political party. You will see that as India becomes more urbanized, the Congress will start to develop power. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, we've developed power in the urban area. But we have got caught. Because we were we, we, our conversation, for example, and Gujarat is, okay, we have a rural strength. And now how do we transition to the urban. The BJP occupied the empty urban space, right? Right. certain urban spaces in Delhi, we were very, very successful for many years. Mumbai were very successful for many years, and then we, we made some mistakes, for example, in Delhi. But what was the second part of your question? Yeah, the urban condition. Urban condition. My trends and the poor. It's absolutely terrible. Again, you go back to the point I made about job creation. You, you are creating a situation where there are simply too many people who don't have a future and they're living in the urban area. India does not have a job creation vision. It just does not. Right. And without a job creation vision, without value addition, without transforming agriculture, you're not going to solve that problem. People, people are going to the cities in search of jobs. Nobody's left a village without wanting a job. And in the city, they're not finding the job. And so, so that is the one huge element of the problem. The second element of the problem is the politics over in India. Rural India has traditional mechanisms. India has been a rural country for thousands of years. Our political system emerges from that. Those mechanisms of panchayat is not a new thing. Panchayati Raj is not 50 years old. It's thousands of years old. Right. There is no such organic idea of a city. The idea of a city of urban India is relative new idea compared to rural India. Right. So the politics of urban India, especially with the rate at which the organization is playing out, are playing catch up. And certainly the, the institutional framework, the structures, they're not there yet. And we need to, we need to push them. If you ask me, the simple, single biggest issue is decentralization of power, that you have to give more power to local body people, ward people in the urban areas. They're not, in North India, a mayor is palace. Thank you. In the interest of time, let's take two questions now together. So one is Sebastian Lucic at, in Delhi, and then second is Paulumi Chakravarty sitting here in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sebastian Rahul took a BA from, from us, from Brown and has been working in Delhi for over a year and Paulumi took a PhD from Brown, is currently a postdoc scholar, postdoctoral scholar at Harvard and also on the faculty at Queens University in Canada. So why don't you achieve the political scientists? So, Sebastian and Paulumi, go ahead with your questions and make it brief for a few, if possible. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Gandhi for joining us. My question for you is, on some issues, politicians can play a role in leading the people. Well, on other issues, politicians actions and statements must be led by the preferences of the people. Over the course of your political career, what is an instance where you felt that you led the people and what is one instance where you felt that you were led by the people and how do you determine which issues fall into which category? It's a dynamic process. So it's not that there are some instances where you're led by the people and then other instances where people lead you. It is a constant ongoing process where you're assimilating ideas. You listen to something they say, you agree with something they say, you, you assimilate that, you have an idea, you pass that idea onto them. So it is a, it's like a live, vibrant thing. It isn't that, oh, this is the decision that I have taken on my own. You're wearing that shirt. You might think that you wore that shirt on your own, but you couldn't wear that shirt without the person who made it. You couldn't wear the shirt without the person who made the buttons. You couldn't make the shirt without the guy who opened the door to the factory, et cetera, et cetera. So, so I don't think there is this notion that, oh, I came up with this idea and there isn't also a notion that, oh, they came up with the idea. It is, it, it sort of merges, one merges into the other and then you get, you get an outcome. I, I like to keep my ears open and I find that I get huge amount of ideas from people that can inform, inform, inform my decisions. I'd be very worried making decisions, political decisions without being informed and without listening. I'd be, I'd be scared of doing that. So I think it's a, it's an ongoing process. Thank you. Follow me. Go ahead. Thanks, Ashu. So my question builds on the discussion that we've had on institutions and like the breakdown of institutions and political parties themselves are institutions as well, right? So many would argue that the bigger crisis in Indian politics now is not majoritarianism, but it's the lack of an alternative. It's the lack of a strong opposition. There are people who don't like Modi. They don't like BJP, but they don't have anyone else to vote for. And there are political observers who know parties really well, who would argue that, you know, the Gandhi families won't really keep the Congress together. But this can also be limiting, right? It can, it's limiting in the sense that it does not allow for new leadership to flourish. And it also does not allow the space for a new political ideology to emerge that is more relevant to our times. And I know that you've stepped down as the president recently of the Congress Party, but my question to you is the following. I mean, given the crisis at hand and we know the last few years have not been great, would the Gandhi family be willing to step aside from their control of the Congress Party and to let new leadership flourish? The point is that I am fighting a ideological war. I believe in certain ideas and I defend those ideas. And I don't really care what my name is. That make me any difference. I don't even care who my grandfather was. Great. I don't care about any of that. But there are certain ideas that I defend, right? And I'm going to defend them. I mean, whether anybody likes it or not, I'm going to defend them. Right? Now, what's interesting to me is that nobody in my family has been prime minister for what? Since 89, right? Ninety-nine, so twenty-eight, twenty-one years. No, thirty years, thirty years. But there is an obsession that somehow we are in power, etc., etc. I have a role to play in the Congress Party. The role to play in the Congress Party is I defend a particular ideological current in the Congress Party. And that's, that's I believe strongly in that. I'm certainly not going to say, OK, thank you very much. I will now not defend that ideological position in the Congress just because somebody says I happen to be so-and-so son. I mean, why should I? Right? Now, question of, should other people become leaders? Absolutely, one hundred percent. And I'm more than happy to push as many leaders as possible and make as many of them successful. And that's my record. I, by the way, was never the prime minister of this country. Right? And you can ask anybody in the Congress Party, that's all I do all day long. I push people and I help develop people and I push them forward. But I don't take kindly to the idea that just because my father is someone, I do not have the right to defend my political idea. Why? Why? I mean, why should, why? Just because someone feels that it's inconvenient that I defend the political idea. It's interesting to me, right? I'm attacked every morning by the BJP. I'm every morning I'm kicked and kicked and kicked. I'm the only person, right, who actually sits there and attacks the prime minister. That's what I do every day. Now, you want me to say, OK, stop? Why? I think I'm defending, as I said, the I think I'm I'm defending something which I fundamentally believe in. I would argue that the critique would be intraparty democracy rather than the the critique that you should not defend your ideology. So so I'm more I'm the person in the Congress Party who has been pushing elections in the Congress Party from day one. I've been mauled in the press because I push elections. Please just do us just do a search on internal democracy in the Congress Party and see the amount of abuse I got for it. It's quite it's interesting to me when I'm pushing internal democracy, everybody's going to push it. Have you I mean, have you ever heard me say that the Congress Party should not have elections? I've never said it, right? And by the way, the next step, of course, is interesting, which is neither does the BJP have an election. Neither does the BSP have an election. Neither does any other political party have an election. But for some reason, which I agree with, because I believe that we have a bigger responsibility for some of the reasons that I outlined earlier. I believe that we should absolutely have elections and we should absolutely elect our leaders. But it's interesting to me that that's not something people expect of any other party. Nobody's ever said I've never written a new paper. Why is Maya Vatiji not having elections? Never, never heard it. I've never heard that. Why is the BJP not having an election? Why is there not an election in the house? I never heard it. It's fascinating to me. And the reason is clear. The reason is because people don't like the negotiation. The problem is the negotiation. They don't like this conversation that takes place in the Congress Party. It's the only party in the country that has it. You simply cannot have the conversations that you have in the Congress Party and any other political party. I've got example after example. I mean, have you asked yourself the question why you've never had a conversation like this with the Prime Minister? Thank you. Thank you. One question is from one of our undergraduates who is actually from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Salko Zlatko has a very simple biographical question Salko, go ahead. Can you? Yeah, go ahead. He is a senior in computer science, last year of computer science. Yes, go ahead. Thank you, sir. And thank you, sir, for spending your time with us today. Yeah, I wanted to ask you more like inwardly reflective question, which is, was there a specific moment in your life when you decided to dedicate yourself to public service and what drove you to do so? No, it's a sort of evolution. There's no specific moment, there's no event. There's such, of course, I mean, certain things impacted me. My father's assassination impacted me, for example. My grandmother's assassination impacted me. But it was an ongoing conversation. That's what we discussed, I guess. When we were kids, we discussed that. We discussed, we are sort of, I think we were brought up in my family with this whole nationalistic idea, very strong. And there was sort of no, there was no question in my mind of not defending this idea. It just, I mean, it just was like, that's just, it didn't arise, so to speak. So when I see that idea being attacked, I don't see any other way except saying, okay, I don't accept this. But there was no particular, I would say that the more, the ideas attack the more I get, I stick my heels in. If you had said to me, if you had said to me, like the lady asked me the question, why don't you sort of step aside? If you had said to me, when I wasn't facing the RSS, I'd be like, huh, yeah, I could do that. But if you say to me that there is this monster that is coming at the ideas that I believe in, then I'd say, no. I will not back down. But the first of the losses did not drive you away from politics. Your father and your grandmother being assassinated, that didn't drive you away from politics at all. Thank you. No, I saw them as, it made it very clear to me that they were fighting for something. It took me some time to refine what it is that they were fighting for. And I'm still not there, you can see. I mean, my explanation to you is cruel. But, and I hope this sort of develops over the next three, four, five, seven, 10 years. But I have a better sense of what exactly it is that I am supposed to defend. And it's not an external thing. It's actually an internal thing. What Mrs. Gandhi and we were talking about. It's much more internal for me. Thank you. We have come to the last minute, last assigned minute of this conversation on behalf of Brown University, Center for Contemporary South Asia, and Watson Institute at Brown. Let me express my profound thanks to Rahul Gandhi for giving us 90 minutes of his time, discussing a wide range of issues from economics to politics to spirituality. The idea of shunita is going to make news that you have to forget your existence sometimes in order to move forward. So thank you very, very much Rahul for your time and for your thoughts. And if you have any final comment to make, please do. I would just make one thing which came to my mind, right? Yeah. Which is that I'm speaking to a foreign university. I'm speaking to Brown and I'm speaking to Indian students in a foreign university. And I was asking myself this question. I was like, why am I not speaking to an Indian university? Just now when you were talking, I was like, why am I not doing this to an Indian university? And the answer is I'm not allowed to. I'm actually not allowed to speak to an Indian university. If I try to do this with an Indian university, the government says you cannot do it. And they threaten the vice chancellor, they do all that. So that's also a huge part of the democratic space. I would love to have this type of a conversation with Indian students in India. But as a politician, that would be something I would love to do. I would love to hear what they say. I'd like to listen to their criticism. I'd like to understand what they're saying. I'd like to inform them of what I'm seeing, but I'm not allowed. Thank you very much Rahul Gandhi for your time.