Sonia Gandhi and her party seem to be working on some agenda that is not in India’s interests. While claiming to have freed India from foreign rule, is the Congress actually engaged in bringing India under foreign control?

To a student of history, Sonia Gandhi is an enigma. Her origins are known: born into a working class family in an industrial suburb of Turin in Italy. Beyond that, her early life and background are a mystery and her interest in the future of India remains questionable. All we know is that she was born in the small town of Orbassano, near Turin.

She went to Cambridge, England, as a teenager, where she met Rajiv Gandhi. We don’t know what she did during her years in England or how she supported herself. There are many stories most of which are contradictory. This is not helped by her habit of fabricating stories to suit her, like her claim of being a Cambridge graduate, which was found to be false. We should also remember how she went to President K.R. Narayanan with false numbers to stake claim to form government, only to be rejected. So, her statements have to be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

It is variously said she was an au pair (live in domestic help) or a waitress, but no one seems to be certain. There are claims that she was a Vatican or some other political plant sent to ensnare Rajiv Gandhi. This assumes that the people who planted her had foreseen the death of both Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay. This appears far-fetched.

Beyond the fact she wants her son, Rahul Gandhi, to be India’s ruler, her agenda is unclear. As a product of a family with close association to Italy’s fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, her commitment to India’s democracy and freedom are in doubt. Her conduct and the conduct of her followers show no great concern for India’s well-being or even security.

What is puzzling is the approach of getting Congress leaders (her minions) to take public positions that are no different from those taken by Pakistani proxies in Kashmir. Most recent are those by Ghulam Nabi Azad and Saifuddin Soz. While these might serve to offend the morale of Indian security forces and make it into the news of Pakistani TV channels, they serve no worthwhile purpose. This is not entirely new. Even during the Kargil War, her campaign speeches criticizing the Indian Government and the war effort were prominently featured on Pakistani news channels. They often began with Mrs Gandhi’s campaign statements. This might have helped elect Mr. Vajpayee and his party, but it does not change the fact she essentially ran an anti-Security forces campaign.

‘Intellectuals’ appearing on TV channels in the national capital explain this as part of vote bank politics to gain Muslim votes. It did not work in 1999 against Mr. Vajpayee and is unlikely to work against Mr. Modi. It failed in Uttar Pradesh, in Gujarat and also in Karnataka, where her party is no more than a camp follower of a local outfit called Janata Dal (Secular). The Congress is not now even a regional party, but is dependent on the charity of a local party like the JD(S) for a few crumbs of office.

None of this would have mattered if her son had shown a capacity to win elections. It is clear that Mr. Gandhi lacks both the intellectual acumen and work ethic needed to rise to the top. He seems to expect to be handed everything on a platter as a reward for his birth. A famous tennis champion when asked how he managed to win matches so regularly, replied, “Winning is a habit with me, it is my second nature.” The same can be said of Mr. Gandhi, except it is for losing. It seems to be his second nature.

This brings us back to anti-national posturing with pro-Pakistan terror outfits in Kashmir and other places. This is no mere vote bank politics, but part of a more sinister design to somehow install Mr Rahul Gandhi at the head of a Government, any government, anywhere.

Is the agenda to break up India so that Mr. Gandhi can head a broken part, as Nehru and Jinnah did, following the Partition of India? This suspicion is heightened by Mr. Gandhi’s affinity for divisive forces like the tukde-tukde gang of separatists and some Congress leaders. Some minions of the Congress, like Mani Shankar Aiyar, have not been above appealing to Pakistan to help defeat nationalist parties, while Christian outfits have openly appealed to vote against parties espousing nationalism.

India should beware such people who would break up India for the sake of being rewarded with a piece. If this is an unfair charge, the Congress can come out and say that they favour Indian unity, including Jammu and Kashmir as an indivisible part of India. Otherwise, we are justified in fearing the worst in the interests of the nation’s security and unity.

This is made more urgent by the fact that the ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) has decided to make Kashmir a major seat of its operations in Asia. And there is no shortage of parties in Kashmir willing to support ISIS. What is the stand of the Congress and the Gandhi mother and son duo on this?

This brings us back to the question: What is the Sonia Gandhi Agenda? Where does she stand on these vital issues relating to India’s unity and security?

The views expressed are personal