Congress Drishyam 2 launch keeps galleries abuzz | Economic Times

After Mohanlal-starrer ‘Drishyam 2’s (spectacle) commercial success like the original, the political gallery is watching whether Rahul Gandhi-directed ‘Congress Drishyam 2’, with the aim of breaking the ‘stranglehold’ of the two dominating groups in Kerala, would be a hit or flop as his similarly intended ‘Congress Drishyam 1’ ended seven years ago at the political box-office.Yet, the timing of ‘Congress Drishyam 2’ launch, by ‘dethroning’ leader of opposition Ramesh Chennithala, has managed to divert public and party focus on who all should be held responsible for the Congress defeat in the Kerala assembly polls. The election was billed as ‘AICC controlled’ with Delhi dictating party candidates and Rahul-Priyanka leading the campaign. While the Congress vote share (25.1%) almost matched CPM’s (25.4%), the AICC-inspired ‘experiment’ of fielding 55% freshers — with 46 out of the 95 candidates below 50 years — proved fatal, as only three of them could win. Of the 21 Congress winners, 15 were MLAs in the previous House. It led to whispers that ‘Delhi imposed candidates’ had no organisational or constituency acceptability. Just as Rahul Gandhi’s post-LS poll rout resignation skirted a post-mortem of Team Rahul’s electoral strategy, ‘Congress Drishyam 2’ too has diverted the focus from failed strategists and campaigners. So, after Rahul Gandhi anointed VD Satheeesan, an energetic and articulate five-term Congress MLA, as leader of the Opposition in Kerala, AICC spinners recycled adjectives –– ‘generational shift’ by ‘breaking traditional factional hold’ –– that they had used for describing Rahul Gandhi’s choice of KPCC president in 2014, the widely-respected VM Sudheeram. However, what happened thereafter was never mentioned.The selection of Satheesan and Sudheeran have many similarities. Both were anointed against the wishes of groups led by Ramesh Chennithala and Oommen Chandy respectively. The duo had wrested, not inherited, the groups’ mantles from K Karunakaran and AK Antony, respectively. If an eight-year age gap between Chennithala and Satheesan was given the spin of ‘generational shift’, so was the seven-year gap between Chandy and Sudheeran. If Sudheeran was once a ‘gamecock’ of the Antony group against Karunakaran before turning ‘group disillusioned’ and ‘neutral’, Satheesan played the supporting role in Chennithala’s group before embarking on his new role to end ‘too much groupism’. Satheesan and Sudheeran belong to the politically dominant Nair and Ezhava communities, respectively, enjoy clean images and their respective elevations were welcomed by ‘ordinary Congress workers’, especially ‘youths’. If an erstwhile Malayali advisor of Gandhi can be credited with the script of the first episode, Gandhi’s handpicked AICC general secretary KC Venugopal is being hailed as associate-director of the second. Yet, Gandhi’s first ‘experiment’ of unleashing Sudheeran to ‘finish off’ the dominant groups only flared up factional fights, with the then PCC leadership and then Chandy-led government fighting non-stop, leading to a bigger LDF victory in 2016 . Sudheeran soon ‘retired hurt’, alleging ambush and non-cooperation by groups and group leaders. By now, Gandhi has grown to be quite a veteran director of ‘experiments’ to rein in ‘entrenched senior leaders’, triggering ‘interesting’ aftermaths in PCCs in Haryana, Rajasthan, Assam, Punjab, Gujarat, Delhi, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand just to name some.Gandhi’s first Kerala experiment bombed despite Sudheeran starring in it because the dominant factions of Congress were like well-oiled machines from PCC to DCCs to taluks to mandal committees and broadly across communities, charged up with loyalty to the two group leaders, their rewards of offices and protection. The two groups zealously guard their turfs round the year (Karunakaran once said this kept the state party organisation fighting fit) and yet, they joined hands to fight the LDF to wrest power every five years, till this assembly poll.For all his experience and stature and despite Gandhi’s backing, Sudheeran neither had his own loyal army of party leaders/workers, nor as PCC chief, could he raise one by breaking away from the dominant groups. Now, Satheesan starts his mission, facing a similar task and challenge. How Gandhi picks a PCC chief to pair Satheesan –– by overlooking factions or by accommodating them –– will be key in the second mission against ‘Congress groups’ which faces three hopes and three nightmares.Hope 1: The rare back-to-back poll rout would weaken factional loyalties of mid-level Congress leaders and MLAs, thus giving Satheesan and the new PCC chief an opening to build on. Nightmare 1: With no five-year refill of government-power this time, the two groups may recognise they have only the party to rule for now and thus could tighten organisational grip.Hope 2: Chandy (77) and Chennithala (64) are ageing and may give up the fight. Nightmare 2: the peculiar genes of Malayalai leaders, from EMS to K Karunakaran to VS Achuthanandan, show they became craftier and successful fighters with advancing age when they are attempts to placate them by the high command.Hope 3: The new team could use the post electoral defeat and the fear of doom to re-build a ‘new factionless Congress’ with Gandhi as mentor ahead of the next LS polls. Nightmare 3: The “groups’ may trigger civil war that could threaten to engulf post-poll remains of the state Congress, including the Waynad seat of Gandhi, at a time when the Congress is faced with an erosion of its Muslim/Christian voters to the LDF and an edgy Hindu base. Both ways, the gallery is guaranteed of an interesting second ‘spectacle’.