Gandhi, who was speaking at the alumni meet of the student wing NSUI, advised the supporters to ask what the opposition parties themselves have done to change things in India. She was confident that the opposition would have little answer to the query.
The Congress chief asked the student wing members to communicate to the people and project before them what the country had achieved since independence. She said it is the Congress that has devoted itself to improve the life of an average Indian. She said it is important that the party's student supporters inform their friends "about the tremendous effort that has gone into nation building".
The UPA chairperson said it is painful for her to see young people complain about the situation in the country even after 66 years of independence.
Now, what does Sonia mean by the last statement? If the Congress has indeed shaped India's future, then why is that people are still not happy and have to be updated about the grand-old party's contribution?
What does the Congress mean by tremendous achievement? She cited setting up of democratic institutions and growth the global economy and other social issues like reservation and land reforms and employment.
But what Sonia has forgotten to mention that the huih points that the Congress schad ored in its history since 1947 were undone by itself and there is no reason to paint all things by the same brush.
If Jawaharlal Nehru had taught India the lessons of liberal democracy, his daughter Indira Gandhi had ruined his legacy and made it a populist one marked by a declining political standard. The essence of democracy in the party was systematically destroyed during her time and the current leadership is finding it extremely difficult to undo the damage.
Did Sonia tell the young students how a non-Gandhi party president of the party was humiliated to give way to her access to the post? Did she proudly say to the students how her mother-in-law had gagged the same democracy that the latter's father had so carefully nurtured?
As far as the economic growth is concerned, it was the same Congress which was in the lead when the nation witnessed the appalling Hindu rate of growth and maintained the status quo till the time when a non-Gandhi forced a change to save the people from disgrace.
The Nehrus and Gandhis had chosen an economic model which had actually chained the Indian potential till the time when P V Narasimha Rao changed the direction. But surprisingly, few people outside the dynasty ever find their names mentioned in the success list of the party. Most or all projects in the nation also run by the name of one or the other member of the 'first family'.
And as far as asking the opposition to say what it had done for the betterment of the country, the Congress still had ruled over 50 years in the country's 66 years of independence and can't really raise such a question.
The Congress vice-president, Rahul Gandhi, lauded the NSUI for spreading the Congress party's secular ethos everywhere. What is Congress's secularism? It identifies itself to be secular just because its days at the top at started with a liberal and secularist Nehru. But there are enough instances in history of independent India which show that the party's secular credentials were dented even in the days of the great leader. And since the post-Indira Gandhi days, Congress's secularism has only been a symbolism to secure its vote-banks.
The party is desperately trying to get some ground underneath its feet and hence targetting the youth sections for some opposition leader has clearly established his credentials better among them. But to say that it painful to see that the youth complain about the state of affairs in the country even after 66 years of independence is an effort to trivialise the common man's plight. We are yet to become a superpower, Madam Gandhi. The days of satisfaction are still miles away.