'If Shastri lived 5 more years, Sonia would have been a housewife'

'The Congress, historically, has been inclusive'

'Most Indians today identify Congress with a single family'

Gandhi's stroke of genius

'Nehru and Patel were wise to disregard Gandhi's advice to disband Congress'

'The slide came after 1969 when Indira broke the Congress'

'After Gandhi and Nehru, Congress owes Kamaraj a great deal'

'The Congress, historically, has been inclusive'

'Most Indians today identify Congress with a single family'

Gandhi's stroke of genius

'Nehru and Patel were wise to disregard Gandhi's advice to disband Congress'

'The slide came after 1969 when Indira broke the Congress'

'After Gandhi and Nehru, Congress owes Kamaraj a great deal'

It is true that what is called 'high command culture' emerged in Congress due to Indira Gandhi, but some argue that without Nehru and Gandhi's leadership Congress would not have remained united.

Not at all! What about Shastri? Shastri's accidental death created this. If Shastri had lived another five years, Sonia Gandhi would have been a housewife and Rajiv Gandhi would have been alive. In 1965, Indira Gandhi was thinking of migrating to England! It is an accident of history that Shastri died, prematurely.

The so-called high command culture came in Congress also because it was trying to survive those changing times.

Look at history. Because of Indira Gandhi's authoritarian dictatorial ways you had new parties challenging the Congress. Many state leaders were averse to it. Because of this high command culture within Congress, you had the rise of Telugu Desam Party and Janata Party in Karnataka and Communists grew in West Bengal and Kerala, Asom Gana Parishad in Assam, Bahujan Samaj Party in UP and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu. So, Congress lost control in many states because of lack of party organisations at the state level. They depended solely on charisma of Indira or Rajiv. But, now they have recognised the problem. They are rebuilding the party at the state level.

Do you think after 125 years Congress runs the positive balance because of its belief in secularism?

It runs because of its inclusiveness. Unfortunately, we reduce inclusiveness to secularism. Inclusiveness is much more than secularism. Linguistic pluralism is part of inclusiveness. Because of Gandhi, Congress operated in different languages. Gender was very important to Congress. It was remarkable that they had Sarojini Naidu, Sucheta Kriplani, Kamladevi Chatopadhyay, etc Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi are not the first women leaders of Congress.

People from all castes, south, east and north -- all are included in Congress. Inclusiveness is the greatest strength of Congress. Except for the aberration of emergency it is committed to electoral democracy. I have written in my book India after Gandhi how in 1947-48, Nehru and Patel kept the military out. They told the military this is your lakshman rekha (limit). Unlike Bangladesh or Pakistan or many countries of Africa, we were able to keep the military at a distance.

Also, India was able to keep Left extremists out. Congress has these plus points. But it should not be content with this; it should do better. In many ways, today's Congress is not living up to its best traditions. Indira Gandhi became all-powerful only in 1971. So, for 85 years, Indian National Congress was not dependent on one family. For two-third years of its existence, it was without high command culture. You can argue because of its two-third years of history, because of 80 years of work of thousands of selfless Congress workers one family has benefited! That family (Gandhi family) has to recognise this fact.

Source: http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/mar/23/slide-show-1-interview-with-ramachandra-guha-on-congress.htm#contentTop