Why didn't the senior Congress leaders start another Congress party without the Gandhi family?

Satya Nadella - CEO of Microsoft, Sundar Pichai CEO of Alphabet‎ and ‎Google everybody knows about them. They are immensely talented and great business administrators, but not business owners. They work for others. There is a difference between Creating an organization and running an organization on behalf of somebody. They could be hired for a fee and could be fired as well. Recently Parag Agrawal was fired from Twitter by Elon Musk. This is the difference. It depends on what you want to be and what you want to do with your talent. The breed is different, The talent and capability could all be the same, but the breed could be different. One is born to rule and the other wants to be ruled. Do you want to be a high-profile employee or a business owner? Most prefer to be an employee. 

Most politicians also fall into that category - they serve some party. They can not create a party. They get sold from one party to another for a few rupees or for some advantages like we change jobs for a higher salary and higher position. Few Ex-Congressmen/Congresswomen have created their own parties - NCP, TMC, YSRCP, etc. But none could replace Congress. Indira Gandhi was thrown out of the original Congress. However, the veteran leaders could not make the Original Congress (Congress O) survive. They dissolved it to create the Janata party. Janata Party also got disbanded and in its place, we have JDU, RJD, etc.

Had Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai been confident, they would have created their own Microsoft and Google. However, despite having all the knowledge and competencies to run organizations like Microsoft and Google they are comfortable working as employees. I mean no disrespect. But that’s the reality. They are possibly not confident about creating their own empire. Look at their owner, they are not as qualified as Mr. Pichai. Quite often most qualified people end up being an employees only serving an unqualified boss.

I find such questions very interesting. It seems the whole nation desperately wants Congress to change. What change nobody knows. Possibly people, more so the Bhakts want Gandhis to give up politics. Why so? Gandhis do not have the right to do politics? It’s our choice whether we vote for Congress or not. If we do not vote, Congress as well as the Gandhis are immaterial. I think the choice should be left open for all. Nobody ever asked whether Mamata or TMC should bring any change.

I have attended too many workshops on “Leading Change”. It is said that only “change” is permanent, nothing else. But then I look at the old wine. The older the wine, the more premium. Glenfiddich's 50-year-old Single Malt Scotch Whisky is one of them. It cost around Rs 10 Lakh

1926 Macallan Fine and Rare Collection - Rs 54.5 Lakh. This is the oldest whisky in the Fine and Rare collection of Macallan. Only 40 bottles of it were produced that have 42.6% Alcohol by volume (ABV). The 1926 Macallan is dry and concentrated with licorice aftertaste and has no added water. The bottle comes for $75,000 (approx Rs 54,55,702).

62 year old Dalmore Scotch Whisky

One of the most exquisite whiskies in the world, the Dalmore 62 has appeared in the auction only twice. The liquid gold is matured in a bespoke hand-crafted cask and seasoned with Gonzales Byass Matusalem Oloroso 30 Year Old Sherry. The spirit comes at $200,000 or Rs 1,45,53,100. Only 12 bottles were created and each has been individually named, hand signed, and numbered. One of the bottles was recently auctioned for $335,000 (approx Rs 2,43,77,950)

Henri IV Dudognon Heritage Cognac - Rs 14.56 crore. The 100-year-old bottle of Henri IV Dudognon Heritage Cognac is referred to as the rarest and world's most expensive Cognac. The bottle is dipped in 24-carat gold, sterling platinum and decorated with 6,500 cut diamonds. The luxurious spirit is packaged by jeweler Jose Davalos. The liquor in the 8 kg was manufactured in 1776 and aged in barrels for more than 100 years. The bottle has 1000 ml liquid with 41% ABV. The bottle is priced at $2 million (approx Rs 14,56,93,000).

I asked my speaker - is it always necessary to change? He didn’t have a direct answer. But he had a much more beautiful answer. That it is not necessary to change outwardly, but inherently you definitely undergo change even if you have the same ingredient not adding anything new. A brand new bottle of super premium Cognac and 100-year-old Henri IV Dudognon Heritage Cognac doesn’t behave in the same manner. It gets refined. Definitely, there is change. This change is not external, it’s internal. The character of cognac remains the same, it doesn’t become something else. But it behaves in a different manner.

Rahul and Congress need not change drastically or change externally. What it needs is to undergo changes inherently to add the value proposition. Old wines are always more premium, lineage matters, and DNA matters. New wines in the old bottle don’t make it premium, nor you would pay an ultra-premium for a new whisky bottle. It is always not necessary to change people. What is more important is to bring change in people or people to undergo change mechanisms. At times it’s not possible to replace people. For example, it’s not possible to replace or exchange people of the nation, but we can always try to bring change in them to behave more sensibly. Diamonds are made up of coal only, but it undergoes a changing process of heat and pressure. Remember only coal/ashes can turn up to be a diamond, nothing else.