Tag: rahul gandhi resignation

Congress Must Move Away From Hero Worship And Towards Intra-Party Democracy

The leadership crisis in Congress is symptomatic of a larger malady within Indian democracy where dissent is not tolerated.

Born often out of superstition or out of historic, religious and cultural processes, most societies cling on to symbols and totems that are of special spiritual or personal significance much like the ‘fertility totems’ of indigenous people. All of them have some origins and associations with natural phenomenons, hoary rituals or ancestry.

For the Congress it’s ancestry – the Nehru-Gandhi family is its totem. Over the years successive coteries of courtiers and sycophants have cast a spell of voodoo magic on Congress workers down the line, with those closest to the Gandhis dancing around the ‘Gandhi totem pole’.

The majority of these minions and hangers-on derived their power through the family and the Gandhi talisman was necessary for their own survival and for keeping the party together. They stood to gain by perpetuating the myth. Implicit in this act of worship was the message that discarding their lucky charm would spell doom for the party. And the ruling family readily embraced the idea.

Now Rahul Gandhi has resigned. And the devotees are utterly bereft, like the faithful who feel orphaned when their godman or cult leader is whisked away from the ashram and put away in jail for crimes that they believed only ordinary mortals like themselves could commit.

Rahul Gandhi did the right and the courageous thing by standing firm and not yielding to emotional pressures to return to the kind of cult that Congress dynastic rule had morphed into. He has set an example by accepting electoral defeat and holding himself accountable and has walked away. And he has walked away tall.

Therein lies the central message for India’s grand old party— there is, or should be, no place for hero worship. No one, not even the ‘superhero’ is exempt from being held to account. A few years ago Rahul Gandhi had tried to galvanise the party bottom-up from the grassroots, trying to usher in a new era of politics through organisational elections across the country, but it excluded himself. That rule also did not apply to his mother Sonia Gandhi or members of the top coterie which had surrounded them, the ones who had come to acquire extra-constitutional authority in the party and government during Congress’s rule over the years.

The elections acted as a clarion call. The sentiment was increasingly reflective of the fact that yes, all were equal, but some were more equal than others. This now bordered on the comic, sounded hollow and Rahul’s attempts to enforce a sense of equality fizzled out.

Also read: It’s Time to Let Rahul Gandhi Go

Yes, he should have quit earlier but it’s never too late. It’s not easy to simply walk away from the throne. The fawning disciples make it impossible. It has to be admired he’s done it now and he is resolute. Rahul ‘s detailed letter is a good starting point. Clean up the deadwood, through genuine organisational elections.


Breathe in fresh blood and ideas by attracting people who genuinely believe in the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Sardar Patel and other stalwarts. It will be a long haul and an arduous task, but it is the only way to save Congress which is necessary for a robust democracy when there’s hardly any opposition to count on. Just as a vibrant opposition to Congress was the need after Independence.

The Congress party rank and file do not have to go far to take lessons — they just need to look at the party’s own illustrious history of over 134 years. Many eminent people who were titans of their time, including foreigners, have been presidents of the party. Gokhale, Mahatma Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu, Chittaranjan Das, Maulana Azad, Madam Mohan Malaviya, Lala Lajpat Rai, Annie Besant, Subhas Chandra Bose, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel are just a few names of those who led the party.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's death has been proved conclusively with evidence in Ashis Ray's book, Laid to Rest. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was a rank outsider when he contested and won the election to the Congress leadership in 1938 and 1939. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

From its very inception, the party believed in genuine democracy, diversity and plurality of ideas and religions. That explains why it attracted so many luminaries and had such a huge following among the masses. Subhas Chandra Bose contested and won the presidential elections in 1938 and in 1939 when Mahatma Gandhi openly lobbied and worked hard to defeat Bose. Then, Purushottam Tandon, in 1949, backed by Sardar Patel won the election to become president even as Nehru opposed his nomination. This was the time when Nehru was prime minister and Patel the home minister.

Gopal Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson had this to say in his op-ed in the Hindu:

“In that election (of Bose) and its aftermath lies another lesson for today’s Congress. The party’s new President should be elected as ‘grandly’ as Netaji was but she or he should not be treated as Netaji was, by the Gandhi-loyal Working Committee of the day. The new President should be left completely free to form the Working Committee, from out of persons whose service-mindedness not boss-mindfulness, is manifest. .. No leader will be found if the attempt is to find a dummy, not a leader. A dummy President will make a dummy of the party.”

Suhas Palshikar, political analyst and co-director of the Lokniti programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, has said that even though Jawaharlal Nehru was a towering figure in the Congress, his decisions involved and included compromises. “Nehru allowed plurality of leaders. It was only after Indira came that dynasty took root in the Congress and the mantle was passed on to Rajiv,” Palshikar said.

Nehru, a historian himself, was not unaware of the dictatorial tendencies lurking inside him and the dangers of such a trait. He was the Congress president for nine terms and held that post even when he was the prime minister from 1950 to 1954 with vast powers vested in one man – himself.

Also read: Rahul Gandhi Does Not Have the Luxury of Simply Walking Away

Barring Maulana Azad, the tenures of most presidents were restricted to only one or two years. In 1937 when Nehru was elected Congress president for the fourth time, in a surprisingly candid article published in the same year in Modern Review and written under the pseudonym ‘Chanakya’ – unable, probably, to resist the temptations of power but yet troubled by it – he self deprecatingly, said:

“From the far North to the Cape Camorin in the South he has gone like some triumphant Caesar passing by, leaving a trail of glory and a legend behind him. And yet he has all the makings of a dictator in him.  … Caesarism is always at the door, and is it not possible that Jawaharlal might fancy himself a Caesar?”

It’s the obligation of the committed Congress party workers who cherish and believe in its great values, traditions and sacrifices to introspect and set about in earnest to rebuild the party. The Gandhi family, who are ridiculed and accused of practising dynastic politics cannot and ought not to be expected to set their house in order.

The crushing defeat in the recent parliamentary elections must be welcomed as a blessing in disguise by the Congress. They should take comfort in the fact that none of the other parties in the country have any semblance of genuine internal democracies, including the BJP, and the Congress’s history shows that the seeds of decline and degeneration were sown when the party adopted a dictatorial role.

File picture of Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

No party in the country holds elections through a secret ballot for any post in the party at any level as was done in the Congress since it was founded and for a few years after independence during Nehru’s tenure.

The legislature party leaders who are chosen by the party to be appointed as chief ministers or the prime minister are never elected either, and not just by the Congress. The BJP claims it does not promote dynastic rule but that does not mean it has internal party democracy.

Decisions are taken behind closed doors in party offices and five-star hotels and resorts and multiple power centres including the supposedly apolitical RSS, flex their muscles to appoint the president or leader of the party who then are known to wield power till they are ousted in various inscrutable and non-transparent ways.

The regional parties are worse and are led by erratic megalomaniacs, who resemble many tinpot dictators of third world countries. A few of these regional parties are also brazenly dynastic.

Also read: Dear Congress, Show Loyalty to Your Country Over a Family

We have a curious paradox. All parties when in opposition demand free and fair elections and swear by democracy, but strangely none of them care for intra-party democracy. Can we have true democracy in the country without genuine democracy within parties?

Democracy, in that respect, is modern and scientific. Yes, it’s messed up, but an admission of ignorance, that no one has the perfect answer is important because progress is possible only when there’s freedom of thought.

When asked why scientists can’t solve societal problems, physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman very eloquently said, “If we take everything into account – not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn’t know – then I think we must frankly admit that we do not know”. The leaders should sometimes admit that they do not know.

But increasingly, both at the state and Centre, no party in India encourages debate or tolerates dissent. “Difference of opinion is the one crime which kings never forgive,” said Emerson. Such a state of affairs does not bode well for the progress of either the state or any party in the long term.

In the prevailing political culture, the pervading absence of any ethics and total degeneration – which was also the cause of the downfall of Congress – is, in fact, an opportune time for new leadership to emerge, from within the Congress, to slowly and steadfastly rebuild an organisation on the ideals that great leaders like Gokhale, Gandhi, Bose, Nehru, Patel and others exemplified, because it will be sure to rise again to shape the destiny of the country. It will not be without challenges or difficulties, but it will be a worthy effort.

Captain G.R. Gopinath is an author, politician and entrepreneur who founded Air Deccan.

Balasaheb Thorat Appointed Maharashtra Congress Chief

Thorat, a former revenue minister, is a farmers’ leader and has been involved in the cooperative movement in Maharashtra.

New Delhi: Balasaheb Thorat was on Saturday appointed president of the Congress’s Maharashtra unit.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi reconstituted the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee and also appointed five working presidents – Nitin Raut, Baswaraj M. Patil, Vishwajeet Kadam, Yashomati Chandrakant Thakur and Muzaffer Hussain.

“Congress president has approved the proposal of appointment of Balasaheb Thorat as president of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee,” a communication from AICC general secretary organisation K.C. Venugopal said.

Thorat, 66, has been a farmers’ leader and has been involved in the cooperative movement in Maharashtra. He is also a former revenue minister.

Though Gandhi has resigned as Congress president, the party is yet to name his replacement and still considers him as its chief.

Thorat replaces Ashok Chavan, who had recently resigned from the post of Maharashtra Congress president.

Of the state unit’s working presidents, Raut is a scheduled caste leader, while Thakur is a Kunbi leader. Both are from the state’s Vidarbha region.

Also read: In Maharashtra, Congress Proved to be Its Own Enemy

Patil is a Lingayat leader from Marathwada, Kadam belongs to the Maratha community and Hussain is a prominent Muslim face from the state’s Konkan region.

Gandhi also named K.C. Padavi, MLA from Nandurbar, as the new Congress legislature party leader in the Maharashtra assembly.

Padavi succeeds Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil, who had defected to the BJP recently.

He has also set up eight separate election-related committees in the party’s state unit.

Thorat will also be the chairman of the strategy committee, with Chavan as co-chairman. Former chief minister Prithviraj Chavan will be the chairman of the party’s state manifesto committee.

Former Union minister Sushil Kumar Shinde will be the chairman of the coordination committee, which will also have senior leaders as members.

The committees have been formed in view of the Maharashtra assembly election, slated later this year.

Nana Patole, who resigned recently as chairman of the Congress’s Kisan cell, will be the chairman of the party’s state campaign committee.

(PTI)

#RightSideUp: A ‘Bharatiya Budget’; Rahul Gandhi, ‘Too Clever by Half’

A weekly round-up of voices from the right.

New Delhi: Though the budget didn’t give much clarity about the Narendra Modi government’s overall revenue and expenditure, and been panned for incorrect estimates, right-wing leaning sites painted a rosy picture and largely hailed the budget as being “bold in its vision for New India”.

Headlines called it a revolution for this sector and that, cheered for the middle class and claimed the budget addressed the concerns of the Indian economy in every way imaginable.

Also read: Here Are the Budget Numbers the Finance Minister Does Not Want You to See

After Rahul Gandhi finally pushed his resignation through as president of the Congress party, the critiques of the Gandhi scion have been endless. Reams upon reams were written this week – some called his resignation letter “arrogant” and an “insult to the Indian electorate”, others made sure to really put their vitriol for the Congress party on full display and slammed Rahul for his “sheer incompetence”.

The obsession over defending the film Kabir Singh from “pseudo-feminists and pseudo-sympathisers” is yet to have faded away. Article after article continues to laud the misogynistic film and take particular glee in calling out those who have criticised the movie for glorifying toxic masculinity.

Director Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s defence of his violent hero was also justified. In an interview last week with Anupama Chopra, Vanga had called anger the “purest emotion”, and actually condoned intimate partner violence by saying that a relationship isn’t entirely concrete if “you don’t have the liberty of slapping each other”.

Also read: #RightSideUp: Celebrating Misogyny in ‘Kabir Singh’; Why Rahul Is ‘No Simpleton’

Here’s a glance of what right-leaning websites had to say about the developments of the week.

‘An Indian Budget truly Bhartiya in letter and spirit’

For Amit Agrahari at rightlog.in, budget day went down very well.

The main reason has nothing to do with India’s economic future, but with the “abandoning of archaic traditions”.

According to him, the latest step towards ridding India of the stench of British colonialism, something he says the Congress perpetuated in its policies and thought processes, “the latest step towards this direction was seen when Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman broke the centuries old British tradition of carrying the budget speech in a leather briefcase. She carried the budget in bahi-khata (ledger)”.

“This was a small step but the symbolism of it towards Indianisation are far reaching.”

Agrahari presents the history of how the first budget of British India was presented by James Wilson in 1869 and was carried in a briefcase. This tradition was continued by India’s first finance minister R.K. Shanmukham Chetty in November 1947.

“Successive governments continued to present the budget in February despite the fact that Indian agriculture which was most important part of economy in initial 40 years is more fitted for July to December cycle.”

Most of Agrahari’s information for ceremonies surrounding the budget has been sourced from this Print article.

Even the Economic Survey, he says, was “Indianised” this year.

“The Economic Survey clearly says the Behavioral economics will be guiding force of policymaking in upcoming years which means the Indian traditions, popular imagination, literature, ancient wisdom on politics and economics will be used to bring positive changes in the life of the people.”

“Men in ancient Indian society were identified with their mothers, Yashoda-Nandan, Kaushalya-Nandan, Gandhari-Putra, as well as their wives/consorts, Janaki-Raman, Radha-Krishna,” the survey stated on the issue of women empowerment.

Thus, the writer says, both the Economic Survey and the budget “make a clear indication towards Indianisation of policymaking in the country”.

This, he says, is a “much-needed step for the de-colonisation of Indian mind”.

Also read: #RightSideUp: ‘Shri Ram, the Secret of BJP’s Energy’; Mahua Moitra, ‘the Outsider’

‘Is Rahul Gandhi trying to be clever by half?’

Balakumar Kuppuswamy, who writes on political developments for My Nation, took great affront to Rahul Gandhi’s resignation letter.

He begins by commending Gandhi for sticking to his decision to resign from the post of party president as “it would have been a travesty” if he had “continued to linger on”.

But, Kuppuswamy says, Rahul took it a step further by not placing the responsibility of losing the Lok Sabha elections on himself alone and by “implicitly blaming others” in his letter.

“I personally fought the prime minister, the RSS and the institutions they have captured with all my being. I fought because I love India. At times, I stood completely alone and I am extremely proud of it,” Rahul Gandhi has said in the letter.

“By saying that he stood alone, is Rahul not accusing others in the party of not backing him up? Essentially, he is saying that the party lost because the party members did not support him adequately. Pray how this is owning responsibility for the defeat?

If anything, Rahul is surreptitiously distancing himself from the loss by clambering up on the moral high ground of verbal sophistry.”

What bothers Kuppuswamy most is that Rahul didn’t just pin the blame on other party leaders, but also on institutions like the Election Commission – which to be fair, has a very spotty reputation after this election.

“There were certainly instances in which the Election Commission could have been faulted, but to throw the entire loss at its doors is rather silly and reflects a mindset that steadfastly refuses to see the larger reality.”

The reason the BJP won such a resounding victory, Kuppuswamy reminds his readers, was not because of corrupt institutions, but because of “Modi’s brand of welfarism and nationalism”.

Pointing out how the Congress is a “disgruntled and disorganised outfit” in most states, he censures Rahul for not focusing on “these germane issues” in a “desire to paint himself as a martyr”.

“If anything, Rahul’s letter and his general approach, does not provide much hope on his leadership qualities. In that sense, it is good that he is leaving that job to someone else.”

Then in a reverse of the sentiment Kuppuswamy began the article with – that it is excellent Rahul has resigned – he says:

“But as a senior member of the party, he should not be seen as someone running away from it all as he has no stomach for a fight.”

Last, Kuppuswamy says Rahul must not be allowed to “operate from behind the scenes, reducing whoever becomes the president of the party to a mere puppet”.

The Imminent Implosion of the Congress-JD(S) in Karnataka Has Happened

Politically, there will not be a dull moment in Karnataka for quite some time.

There was a picture in the local newspapers in Bangalore a few days ago. It was of an event organised by a veteran Congress politician. On the stage were some of his senior party colleagues, including those whose names were doing the rounds in the context of the recent IMA scam – a Ponzi scheme in which mostly poor and middle-class Muslims had lost all their life savings.

The person whose event it was also had some history with a co-operative bank, again meant for the welfare of the Muslim community. 

Around the same time this event was happening in Bangalore, in Delhi, the dilemma surrounding the decision of the Congress president to step down had not been resolved. Rahul Gandhi was still drafting his July 3 letter that offered a certain finality to his decision to go. Plus, Manmohan Singh, the Congress’ finest mascot in recent decades, had no place from where he could get re-elected to the Rajya Sabha.

Also read: Karnataka: Kumaraswamy Cabinet to be ‘Restructured’ After All JD(S), Congress Ministers Resign

In short, the Congress was in a huge flux. But its leaders in Karnataka appeared disconnected from all this.

Forget the crisis within the party, they seemed to care very little about public perception created by the IMA scam when they gleefully posed for pictures and pushed celebratory tweets. There was no remorse, no regret, no reflection, and clearly no sense of urgency to rebuild the party.

Perhaps this is what Rahul Gandhi meant in his letter of July 3 when he said at times “he stood alone”, and that the Congress party had to “radically transform itself”.

But perhaps this is how it has gone on in the Congress for decades. The army has forgotten to wage a war or win a battle.

It is in the backdrop of this indifference that we need to view the latest political crisis in Karnataka when over a dozen Congress MLAs seem to be exiting the party, or using the situation to bargain a better slot for themselves. Nobody is truly worried that the coalition government has become shaky for a hundredth time in a year.

While, one self-appointed ‘troubleshooter’ with a multitude of legal troubles has got fake social media accounts and paid hacks to make him the most ‘obvious and natural’ replacement for Rahul Gandhi, besides being the best bet to be chief minister; another at the helm hopped from one event to another, on the Sunday after the crisis, only to make things look normal.

Both leaders were being delusional, but that is what the Congress is in Karnataka, and perhaps elsewhere too. The public sees through them, and their sham, but they fail to realise the sentiment.

File image of rebel MLAs from Karnataka at a hotel in Mumbai. Photo: PTI

In this particular case, it is often presented that the Congress is losing out to the Janata Dal(Secular) on the ground and therefore the coalition has been, and has become, terribly unstable.

It is argued that the support demographics of the two parties overlap, and hence they cannot be together. This may be true, but this is also a broad air cover of an argument offered for perpetuating feudal politics, power hunger, territorial control and personal ambition, especially in the plentiful Old Mysore or South Karnataka districts.

Let us be honest, does anyone think that top leaders like Siddaramaiah are fighting a battle to safeguard the interests of the Congress? For someone like Siddaramaiah to be subjected to the ‘tyranny and humiliation’ of the Gowda family is a personal affront. He doesn’t mind sitting in the Opposition, but cannot bear to see a Gowda family member bossing over with a tiny group of MLAs.

No wonder that a number of his followers have joined the rebel bandwagon. No wonder it was these MLAs who always made it known in public that their chief minister was not H.D. Kumaraswamy, but Siddaramaiah.

But, the former chief minister does not understand that the coalition government happened because he failed to get a majority; it reflected his five years in power. It had to do with his mismanagement of both 2018 assembly and 2019 parliament elections. There is no shirking this responsibility because he was at the centre of all strategy.

Karnataka chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy arrives at a hotel in Bangalore on July 7, 2019. Photo: PTI/Shailendra Bhojak

There were honourable ways for him to resist this Congress-JD(S) coalition, but the narrative now being built up in the media may make him look like a party-wrecker. That may, unfortunately, become his legacy in the absence of anything else that is substantial. His decency and progressive talk of all the previous decades will look like a mask that finally came off if he does not help the situation now.

There may be another element that may have loosened the hinges of the coalition government. Siddaramaiah had a personal obligation to Rahul Gandhi, who, he always thought was singularly responsible in making him chief minister in 2013. This was when Sonia Gandhi was AICC president and there were contenders to the chair.

Also read: Has Congress Been Delivered a Death Blow in Karnataka?

Now that Rahul Gandhi has drifted away in Delhi, the seasoned politician may have quickly shuffled his loyalties to place an even greater emphasis on himself and his deeply nursed rivalries. Not many may know Siddaramaiah has a long history of rebelling against the party he serves, and nurturing a sulk that takes deep roots.

Recall what happened when J.H. Patel was made chief minister when Deve Gowda became prime minister; remember what happened when Dharam Singh was chosen chief minister, and jog the memory to remember what happened when Mallikarjun Kharge was made opposition leader in 2008.

Each time he has had his way in whatever measure. Perhaps, he is trying his luck this time too.

Perhaps not.

The BJP did not provoke this fresh round of crisis. They have mostly been in the background. They may have advised, lured, built connections and provided logistics, but could any of this have happened if the Congress or JD(S) leaders were not willing partners? If they weren’t looking for an opportunity and stood for something else other than power and money?

One upper caste senior leader from the Congress party has apparently been negotiating for at least nine or ten months with the BJP. They didn’t want him, despite his riches, because they had nothing suitable to offer him, and they were strong enough in the region he came from.

But now, it seems, they may add him to the herd of defectors. The saffron party has gauged that there is a critical mass, and the reasoning wouldn’t be against them when there is a whole herd to cross over.

It makes the BJP look good and powerful, and the Congress-JD(S) weak and purposeless. The performance of the coalition government has anyway tested the patience of the electorate.

But forget ideological commitment, those crossing over from the Congress do not have a sense of history either. They perhaps do not know that many like them who crossed over or aligned with the saffron party, however big, were deflated soon.

Be it Babagouda Patil, Jeevaraj Alva, S. Bangarappa, Srinivas Prasad, D.B. Chandre Gowda, even Ramakrishna Hegde and more recently S M Krishna. They don’t mind their entire political legacies being wiped out, but there is something about the present that makes them succumb. If power is the only glue that holds, the Congress and JD(S) will see more serious damage in the days to come.

Anyway, Siddaramaiah is not alone to blame for the Congress’ decline. Most senior Congress leaders have functioned like private limited companies. If one were to examine the data of the past four decades even cursorily, that is ever since the first non-Congress government came to power in the state under Ramakrishna Hegde in 1983, the party has practically remained growthless. Its average vote share has stagnated at 30.49%.

It has come to power only when others have splintered, that is the Janata Parivar or the Sangh parivar, except in 1989 when Veerendra Patil became chief minister, a goodwill which the party squandered within a year. None of the Congress’ victories thereafter could be analysed as an outcome of a desirous positive vote, but only as default residual memory for the grand old party. The Congress leaders never rode on a new idea or on the support of a new community to come to power.

Also read: Karnataka, a Congress Bastion In the Modi Years, Stormed by BJP

What the BJP is trying to do now is very interesting and far-reaching. They are not interested in power alone. They are in no hurry to make B.S. Yeddyurappa the chief minister again. If at all, they are looking for ways to circumvent his ascension. They are mostly done with him.

Their real intent is to strike deep roots in South Karnataka. They appear tired of being dubbed a Lingayat, North Karnataka party. Their aim is to deepen leadership in the Vokkaliga community. That is precisely why a tottering, forgetful S.M. Krishna was allowed in. For whatever it was worth, he has served as a totem for identity politics in the region. And the results of Lok Sabha polls in the region have been very encouraging too.

Politically, there will not be a dull moment in Karnataka for quite some time in the future starting now.

Sugata Srinivasaraju is a senior journalist and author.

Milind Deora Resigns as Mumbai Congress Chief, to Play a ‘National Role’ in the Party

Deora expressed his desire to quit shortly after meeting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in New Delhi on June 26.

Mumbai: Mumbai Congress president Milind Deora on Sunday announced his resignation from the post and said he was looking forward to playing a role at the national level to help stabilise the party.

He recommended the setting up of a provisional collective leadership comprising three senior Congress leaders to oversee the city party unit till the Maharashtra Assembly polls which are due later this year.

A statement issued by his office on Sunday said taking on the BJP-Shiv Sena and negating the impact of Vanchit Aghadi is a challenge for the Congress in Maharashtra.

Deora expressed his desire to quit shortly after meeting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in New Delhi on June 26.

“The same has been conveyed to All India Congress Committee general secretaries Mallikarjun Kharge and K C Venugopal,” the statement said.

Also read: How Vivek Tankha, a Little-Known Congressman, Set Off a Domino Effect of Resignations

When contacted, Deora said political realities have changed since the Lok Sabha results. “We all will have to get ready for roles that these times demand,” he said.

Deora was appointed the president of the Mumbai Congress on the eve of the Lok Sabha polls held earlier this year.

“I had accepted MRCC presidentship in the interest of uniting the party. I felt I should also resign after meeting Rahul Gandhi,” he said.

Gandhi resigned as Congress president at a CWC meeting on May 25, two days after results of the Lok Sabha elections were declared.

“I have suggested a three-member panel (to oversee the city party unit) and am being consulted by leaders to identify names. I look forward to play a national role to help stabilise the party. Needless to say, I will continue to guide and unite the Mumbai Congress,” Deora said.

Deora contested the Lok Sabha poll from Mumbai-South constituency but lost to Shiv Sena’s Arvind Sawant.

With Rahul’s Resignation, Will Congress Finally Extricate Itself From the Gandhis?

Day-to-day party affairs may be left to a non-Gandhi party president, but he/she would hardly be able to decide on fundamental issues – especially those connected with the party ideology or electoral strategy.

That the Nehru-Gandhi family completely dominates the Congress party is indisputable.

That position is not going to change with Rahul Gandhi owning responsibility for the party’s crushing 2019 Lok Sabha electoral defeat and giving up its presidency. Sonia Gandhi’s election as the Congress parliamentary party chairperson, Priyanka Gandhi’s continuance as a party general secretary and, finally, Rahul Gandhi himself making it clear in his resignation letter that he will continue to be an active party member all show that the party will remain family controlled.

Thus, will Rahul’s successor be expected to perform the same role for the family that Manmohan Singh did as prime minister leading the UPA government – manage affairs but accept the family’s primacy and its intervention whenever and wherever on whatever issue it choses?

Viewed in this light, there would be ‘accountabilities’ of different kinds for different sets of party persons. Rahul Gandhi would lose party presidency but not his determinant, if for some time maybe recessed, influence in party affairs.

However, if the chief ministers of the three states – Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh – give up their offices and senior party persons give up their party posts, their influence will drastically decline.

All this can be ascribed to the basic nature of the party in its present avatar and this itself can be traced back to five decades ago – to the tumultuous year of 1969 when the Congress party split.

Also read: Rahul’s Exit is a Historic Opportunity for the Congress, and its Members

Indira Gandhi was expelled by party veterans but she succeeded in projecting her group as the true Congress, the vehicle of the National Movement which, after independence, under Jawaharlal Nehru, laid the foundations of modern India.

Indira Gandhi also gradually made it a completely family centric organisation. During the Emergency, she allowed Sanjay Gandhi to play a pivotal role in party affairs and also intervene in government processes at will.

It is true that lobbying for children began much earlier; Motilal Nehru proposed to Mahatma Gandhi that Jawaharlal Nehru should be considered to preside over the Lahore Congress session in 1929. That session became historic for the party adopted the Purna Swaraj resolution under Jawaharlal’s leadership and inspiration.

Like his father before him, Jawaharlal agreed to make Indira Gandhi the president of the Congress. She became head of the party in 1959. This was a time when there were innumerable party veterans who could have been accorded the distinction of leading the party.

Certainly, Jawaharlal was the tallest leader of the party yet it did not then become an entirely family centric affair for then there were leaders who had gone through the baptism of the national movement and had large followings and national status because of their political work.

Thus, at Nehru’s death the party chose Lal Bahadur Shastri as prime minister. The decision to make Indira Gandhi prime minister after Shastri’s death in 1966 was determined more by a desire of party veterans to keep Morarji Desai out then get Nehru’s daughter in.

The situation became completely different after the party split in 1969. The majority of the group that remained with Indira Gandhi became her personal loyalists and after the 1971 election victory no one came forward to credibly challenge her. The imposition of the Emergency too witnessed no opposition from within the party and even senior leaders let Sanjay Gandhi ride roughshod over them.

It was only after the declaration of the 1977 elections that Jagjivan Ram and Hemavati Bahuguna among others revolted that the situation changed. They had read the writing on the wall regarding the popular revulsion in the north against emergency excesses.

Also read: Rahul Gandhi Does Not Have the Luxury of Simply Walking Away

Some Congress members left the party when Indira Gandhi was in the wilderness after her defeat in 1977 but she continued to be its leader as did Sanjay Gandhi. The party returned to power in January 1980.

When Rajiv Gandhi filled the vacuum left by Sanjay’s sudden death in an airplane crash that year the party demonstrated that it had become a total family centric affair. After the reverses of the 1989 election Rajiv Gandhi did not leave the field. He did not accept responsibility the way Rahul is doing now.

What happened after Rajiv’s death is fresh in popular memory to need to be recalled. The significant lesson that emerges is that the party continued to centre around the family legacy even if Sonia Gandhi had distanced herself.

That family centeredness has only increased in the past two decades. It will not go away unless the Gandhi family completely disassociates itself from the party, indeed, from politics itself.

Even if some party members were to revolt or leave, as some are currently doing, it will not change the family’s position.

Also read: How Vivek Tankha, a Little-Known Congressman, Set Off a Domino Effect of Resignations

Rahul Gandhi has eloquently stated his commitment to the party’s ideology and his determination to carry on the struggle against the political principles of the BJP and the Sangh parivar.

Will his resignation assist the party in this struggle?

This is unlikely for the party will still look to the Gandhis, especially Rahul for final signals on all significant matters. The family will have to decide on the manner of how to take on the government. Yes, day-to-day party affairs may be left to a non-Gandhi party president but he/she would hardly be able to decide on fundamental issues – especially those connected with the party ideology or electoral strategy.

Will Rahul be able to bring in a culture of accountability by resigning himself? The people will remain sceptical for they would feel that his stepping down is a formality and that he will retain the substance of authority even if he gives up the position of party president.

Does all this place Rahul Gandhi in a difficult situation? The answer is in the affirmative. But then this situation itself is inherent in the nature of all family centric enterprises. Rahul Gandhi wants the party to radically transform itself. But the question is: has Rahul Gandhi thought through all aspects of his resignation especially if his resignation would assist the party’s transformation.

It does not appear to be so.

The great reverse of 2019 provides him an opportunity to show that the transformation in his political persona is not illusory.

Vivek Katju is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, Ministry of External Affairs.

What Explains the Appointment of Mohan Markam as Congress’s Chief in Chhattisgarh?

The party appears to worried about its tribal vote bank slipping away – as it has observed in Odisha and Jharkhand.

On May 23, Rahul Gandhi offered to resign as Congress president. Subsequently, all notifications issued by K.C. Venugopal, general secretary (administration), were in the name of All India Congress Committee (AICC).

However, on June 28, more than a month after Rahul first made the offer and a day after Vivek Tankha caused a domino effect of resignations, Mohan Markam was appointed the president of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC), replacing the sitting chief minister Bhupesh Baghel who had held the dual charge.

This time, the letter was issued in the name of AICC president.

Can a Congress president who has sent in his resignation appoint a state unit president? How is the president’s resignation accepted and by whom? Does the resignation of Congress president entail that the organisation’s general secretary becomes the temporary head till fresh elections take place – and if that is the case, then can he issue appointment letters in the name of AICC or party president?

These questions can only be answered by the Congress Working Committee. If someone were to approach the Election Commission or challenge Markam’s appointment in court, it could then result in a closer examination of the Congress constitution.

Markam’s appointment, however, also raises questions of a deep political nature. While most observers interpreted Markam’s letter as a sign that Rahul might continue as the party president despite his insistence on resignation, less than a week later, he made his resignation letter public by tweeting its entire content. In it, he lamented that he had had to fight the 2019 general elections on his own steam and that not many within the Congress had come forward to support him, especially the senior leaders. He was also despondent that no one had taken responsibility and chosen to resign like him.

Also read: How Vivek Tankha, a Little-Known Congressman, Set Off a Domino Effect of Resignations

Neither had Baghel sent in his resignation and nor was Rahul attending office, so what was the urgency in appointing Markam? And why was Markam chosen for the post? Why is he important? Equally significantly, Chhattisgarh is the only Congress-ruled state where has Rahul approved a cabinet expansion through the swearing in of Amarjeet Bhagat on June 29 itself.

There are no easy answers, but it appears Congress is now worried about its tribal vote bank slipping away – as it has observed in Odisha and Jharkhand. It thus wants tribal PCC presidents in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.

Also, Bastar has completely slipped out of Congress’s hands, at least that’s what the Lok Sabha results showed. Congress had won 11 out of 12 assembly seats in Bastar in December 2018, but it managed to win by a narrow margin only one out of the two Lok Sabha seats six months later.

Markam, 51, was a shiksha karmi in Bastar and later became an insurance agent when Chhattisgarh came into existence in 2000. Around 6-7 years later, he met Ajit Jogi, who, impressed with his ability to take up public causes, drafted him into Congress. He was later twice elected as an MLA from Kondagaon. At present, he is a sitting MLA. This still does not explain his elevation to PCC president.

Amarjeet Bhaga, a four-time MLA from Surguja, and Manoj Mandavi, a three-time MLA from Bastar, had both been ignored for a cabinet berth by Baghel.

Also read: Rahul’s Exit is a Historic Opportunity for the Congress, and its Members

While Delhi was witnessing the resignation drama, a sub-plot seems to have been playing out in Chhattisgarh. Baghel’s rival claimant for the chief ministerial post, T.S. Singh Deo, did not want Amarjeet Bhagat – who represents Sitapur in Surguja as PCC president – after initially having blocked his entry into the cabinet in December. Baghel had cleverly kept a spot vacant for Bhagat. So before push came to shove, Baghel took in Bhagat and opted for low-profile Markam over Mandavi.

So, was it Baghel who was able to convince Rahul to make this one last appointment? It must have been, because Baghel was in-charge of the Lok Sabha campaign and its costs in Amethi and UP while Rahul campaigned all over the country and in Wayanad. He did not want to risk someone else taking over as Congress president and wanted to make changes according to his will. Baghel was helped in this endeavours by P.L. Punia.

What they failed to do, however, was to get a list of chairmen for various boards and corporations in time. This will soon lead to acrimony between various factions.

Markam has declared that his first priority is to win the two seats in Bastar that are to go to polls, and then prepare for the forthcoming municipal and panchayat elections at the end of the year. He has also declared that he will be leading agitations against the Central government. What all issues will be covered still isn’t certain. Meanwhile, he has an able challenger in fellow Bastariya Vikram Usendi, who heads the BJP state unit.

How Vivek Tankha, a Little-Known Congressman, Set Off a Domino Effect of Resignations

Over the years, the former additional solicitor general of India and advocate general of Madhya Pradesh has emerged as a reliable legal luminary-turned-politician.

After facing a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the BJP in the 2019 general election, Rahul Gandhi offered to resign as Congress president on May 23.

But over a month later, no one followed suit barring a few here and there in Uttar Pradesh.

Three days later, the Gandhi scion had also blamed Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot and Madhya Pradesh chief minister Kamal Nath for promoting their sons at the cost of the party.

Finally, on June 27, Vivek Tankha resigned as head of the legal and RTI cell of the All India Congress Committee.

This launched a domino effect of resignations.

Tankha may seem like an odd choice to have kickstarted said resignations considering lawyers Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P. Chidambaram have been around for far longer.

But over the past couple of years, the Gandhis have come to rely on Tankha equally for their court cases.

Over the years, the former additional solicitor general of India and advocate general of Madhya Pradesh has emerged as a reliable legal luminary-turned-politician. He was generally known as an advisor to leaders from his home state – cutting across party lines till he unsuccessfully contested the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections as an independent backed by the Congress.

Back then, it was thought that chief minister Shivraj Singh, whom he considered a friend, could have lent his support to Tankha during in the election. He didn’t and Tankha fell short by two votes as the third candidate.

Also read: Rahul Says He’s No Longer Congress President, Takes Responsibility for 2019 Loss

The defeat may have hardened Tankha’s resolve to align his ship with the Congress where he held the trust of Nath, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Digvijay Singh and the rest. Despite having been Digvijay Singh’s advocate general, he managed cultivated an image of neutrality through his social work and legal demeanour.

But after 2015, the Gandhis had more reasons to be in touch with him. A soft-spoken Kashmiri Pandit with impeccable manners, he impressed the family as someone who could be trusted. But his own reticence in hogging limelight has kept his public profile under par so far.

After losing the 2012 Rajya Sabha polls, Tankha was persuaded to contest the 2014 Lok Sabha from Jabalpur, which he lost to Rakesh Singh as the Modi wave swept the country.

But the loss did not harm his image. In his home town, Tankha and his family are respected for reasons other than politics. His father late, R.K. Tankha, was a high court judge and his father-in law, late Colonel Ajay Narain Mushran, was the finance minister for ten years in Digvijay’s cabinet.

When Vivek Tankha started his legal career in 1979, he decided to plough his own furrow which over years has included immense amount of social work in education for children with special needs and free health camps for the blind as also free blood banks in at least four major district hospitals in MP. He has used his legal and rotary networks to keep his passion for social work properly funded.

As advocate general, he had made an impact on the Supreme Court. On suggestions from senior lawyers and judges, he decided to shift base to Delhi after 2004. His political connections also meant he got involved in the power circuit in the capital, which eventually led to his nomination as Rajya Sabha member from MP in 2016. But before that, he was an additional advocate general during the UPA II regime, handling matters relating to Reliance and the telecom sector amongst others.

What may brought him close to Sonia Gandhi was his single minded determination to pursue the Vyapam cases against the Shivraj government in the Supreme Court at a time when both the Centre and state had BJP governments and the investigating agencies were not at their cooperative best.

Also read: Rahul Gandhi’s Insistence to Step Down as Congress President Leaves UPA Leaders Anxious

So where is this present round of resignations headed as far as Tankha is concerned? He has certainly emerged as a key figure even while keeping his focus on MP politics – as can be seen by his recent tweets on Kamal Nath.

It’s a given that Rahul may not rock the boat too much and remove Nath and Gehlot unless he has some major assignment for them. There was some talk of Gehlot becoming working president of the AICC but that appears to be on the backburner for now. Nath’s rival for the chief ministerial post, Jyotiraditya Scindia, recently lost the Lok Sabha elections from his family seat. But that has not stopped his supporters from clamouring for him to be given charge of the PCC.

It’s not an election year in MP and Scindia, despite his media image, is not an acceptable figure outside the Gwalior region. He lacks a connect with the poor and carries too much baggage of the Raj parivar.

The Congress has tried almost all caste combinations in the MP unit, but without success in building an organisation. Many believe Tankha, with his clean image and work in tribal areas like Mandla, Jabalpur and Jhabua, may be an ideal choice to rebuild the party structure.

He certainly seems to share a good equation with Kamal Nath and Digvijaya Singh. The only hurdle seems to be his  own willingness to dive into the hurly burly of ground level politics outside the charmed circle of an established legal practise.

Or maybe Rahul has other plans for him in Delhi.

Rahul’s Exit is a Historic Opportunity for the Congress, and its Members

Rahul Gandhi’s unforced but much-needed departure from the office of party president has opened up possibilities of a new future, provided its leaders and rank-and-file are willing to seize the moment.

On January 31, 1959, Mahavir Tyagi, a senior Congressman and a member of parliament, gathered all his wits and courage to pen a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, warning the prime minister that he was being increasingly surrounded by sycophants who were bringing a bad name to the party and the government, and that these very darbaris were now lobbying for Indira Gandhi as the next Congress president.

Nehru replied the very next day. The redoubtable leader rejected any suggestion of a Nehru court and feigned disinterestedness in an Indira Gandhi presidency, but insisted that if that was what “the party” wanted, he would abide by the decision, which was not without its cons and but had all its pros.  And, he ended his response to Tyagi with an expression of confidence and faith in India’s future.

In the event, Indira Gandhi did get elected as the Congress president, and Tyagi remained unmolested. He was not isolated; he was not made to feel a traitor. On the contrary, he got inducted into Nehru’s cabinet after 1962.

What this meant, quite simply, was that the Congress was still an institutionalised political formation, with established organisational norms and manners. It could easily take in its stride one presidential term of Indira Gandhi without establishing any precedent of entitlement. Because of a robust organisational culture, it could, when the time came, smoothly oversee two national successions, in 1964 and 1966; and, when needed, it could undergo internal turmoil, in 1969-70, to reinvent itself, rearrange its ideas and predispositions.

An unhappy departure

Unhappily, from the mid-1970s, the party became synonymous with the Nehru-Gandhi family, and, inevitably, an institutional degeneration set-in. From 1998, it firmly recast itself as a political tribe, owing its existence and its allegiance to the chief. The legitimacy of the leadership came to be derived from membership of the chief’s family.

In 2017, the Congress tribe rejoiced when the chief’s son was anointed as the new chief. Now, the chief has walked away, conceding that he has no shamanistic potency, no magic, no wizardry. A massive ten year investment has just gone bust.

Also Read: Rahul Says He’s No Longer Congress President, Takes Responsibility for 2019 Loss

As the hereditary chief, it was perfectly normal for Sonia Gandhi to want to ensure that her son became the new chief who, in good time, could lay claim to the king’s throne. But thanks to one of the tribe’s earlier ancestors, Jawaharlal Nehru, the royal crown was and is subject to democratic contestation and electoral ratifications.

A slight detraction may be permitted here.

In 1960, the billionaire Joseph Kennedy had ensured that the Democratic Party preferred his son, John, as its presidential nominee over a distinguished standard-bearer, Adlai Stevenson, who had twice unsuccessfully contested elections against the war-hero, General Dwight Eisenhower. Despite two defeats, Stevenson was still the most loved and most respected man in the Democratic Party. Before a “Kennedy Mystique” got manufactured, Senator Stevenson had warned that “though bright and able”, John Kennedy was “too young, too unseasoned” to be president and that he “lacked the wisdom of humility.” Stevenson was of the view that “both Kennedy and the nation would benefit from a postponement of his ambition.”

During a tour of the US, Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, visited Madison, Wisconsin, in November, 1949. In this photo, Nehru is seen with Indira Gandhi and local officials. Photo: Indian Embassy Washington/Nov.49/Flickr

A postponement of ambition

In similar vein, it can be suggested that the Congress and the nation would stand to benefit from a postponement of Rahul Gandhi’s ambition. Perhaps Rahul Gandhi has done the Congress a seriously good turn by creating a historic opportunity for this oldest political formation in the country to reinvent itself as a modern political party, to unmoor itself from the anti-democratic notions of dynastic entitlements.

As the Congress members undertake this task, each one of them must be cognisant of this painful fact: for the first time since 1947, the Congress will be out of power for at least a decade. The very enormity of a decade without power at the Centre, without a voice in decision-making at the national level, enjoins them to be responsible, sincere and imaginative.

This can be daunting. The Gandhis have become a habit with the members of Congress, a safety valve, a totemic presence. The habit of ideas and ideology has been systematically discouraged; as long as the Gandhis could help them get into positions of power, these members were only too happy to render a kind of passionless loyalty to the family. Now, a decade without power means the Congress would need to understand how much of India has changed, and, then figure out for itself what kind of role it would have in this changed India. But the basic minimum of this churning has to be a new relationship between the leader and the led.

The dynasty model has failed. Yet, many Congress members are still psychologically unprepared to think beyond the Gandhis; many of them do not want to be in the position of an ahsaan faramosh, an ingrate, even though they deeply resented Rahul Gandhi’s entitled superciliousness. It is too disorienting for them to think that the Congress could be a formation other than a family outfit. They are too afraid to be reminded of their own history.

Also Read: When Jawaharlal Told People Not to Elect Him Congress President for Third Term

All organisations are built on fragile ties – of loyalty to the chief, ideological and intellectual commitments to the group; an esprit de corps, cultivated habits of working together, the joyfulness of collectively pursuing and achieving goals and ideals over and above individual ambitions. A political organisation has to have a sense of larger national vision, a greater public purpose, and a commensurate moral mission.

The Indian National Congress embodied, not long ago, all these traits. It can still boast of an enviable bench-strength; till five years back, these men and women were running the affairs of the Indian state.  Now, without the burden of factoring in the Gandhis’ convenience and calculations, these functionaries are surely capable of making the transition to a democratic future. All that is needed is for the honourable men and women to attend to this task honourably. The time for pettiness and intrigue is over.

36 Uttar Pradesh Congress Leaders Quit Over Lok Sabha Election Defeat

Congress leader in Legislative Council Deepak Singh, among others, took moral responsibility for the party’s defeat.

Lucknow: As many as 36 office-bearers of Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee resigned from their posts on Saturday continuing the spate of resignations in the party following its Lok Sabha election debacle. Congress leader in Legislative Council Deepak Singh, the state unit’s senior vice president Ranjit Singh Judev, general secretary Aradhna Mishra Mona, vice president RP Tripathi and many others have resigned taking moral responsibility for the party’s defeat, an official release of the party said.

Among the members who quit party posts were media coordinator Rajiv Bakshi, joint media coordinator Piyush Mishra, Onkar Nath Singh, Amarnath Agarwal, Mukesh Singh Chauhan, Priyanka Gupta and Ashok Singh.

“As you (Rahul) are adamant on your resignation, there is no point in my continuing in the post. I resign as party leader in Legislative Council and as state general secretary,” Deepak Singh said in a statement issued here.

Also read: The Congress Needs a Bracing Civil War

“I request you to withdraw your resignation otherwise we will be forced to take a bigger step,” he added.

More resignations are likely in the party state unit, a senior party leader said.

The UPCC has nearly 100 members. The members who have resigned include Satish Ajmani, Shyam Kishore Shukla, Hanuman Tripathi, spokesman Dwijendra Tripathi, Shiv Pandey, Pankaj Tiwari and Manju Dixit.

After Congress president Rahul Gandhi announced his decision to quit in the wake of the party’s dismal performance in Lok Sabha polls, many leaders of state units have followed suit.

Gandhi has reiterated that there is no going back on his decision, despite requests by leaders from his party and outside to continue in the post.

Also read: Is There Any Ideology Left in Indian Politics?

Earlier, state unit chief Raj Babbar had quit after the party could win only Rae Bareli seat in Uttar Pradesh and even lost its traditional stronghold of Amethi.

Party MP Vivek Tankha quit as the chairman of the party’s legal and human rights cell on Thursday and urged others to do the same to give a free hand to Rahul Gandhi to restructure the party at all levels.

Party general secretary in charge of Madhya Pradesh Dipak Babaria, Goa unit chief Girish Chodankar, Delhi PCC’s working president Rajesh Lilothia and Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee working president Ponnam Prabhakar have quit, as also a number of other office-bearers in various states.

(PTI)