Rahul Gandhi, Congress, and the challenge of rebuilding democratic opposition

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat 

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi remains in the news almost constantly. Commentators appear sharply divided between his detractors and supporters, leaving little room for those who disagree with both camps. For years, the Congress was accused of creating a political environment in which all non-BJP forces were eventually expected to rally behind it in the name of resisting Hindutva politics. Over time, many regional leaders chose to chart their own course, and for some, the BJP even appeared to be a more convenient political option. In a society where power often determines political relevance, such shifts are hardly surprising.

A recent controversy emerged following remarks by historian Ramachandra Guha, who has often been critical of the Gandhi family. Guha argued that Rahul Gandhi is not "qualified" to become India's Prime Minister. Such assertions raise an important question: what exactly constitutes qualification in a democracy? There is no formal qualification for political leadership beyond the confidence of the electorate. Democracies around the world have often elevated mediocre, inexperienced, and even openly anti-democratic figures to high office. This is not merely an Indian phenomenon.

The deeper crisis lies in the degeneration of leadership under political systems increasingly influenced by corporate interests. The Westminster model, once celebrated as a pillar of democratic governance, is today vulnerable to corporate capture and the prioritisation of economic power over public welfare. Whether one agrees with Rahul Gandhi or not, if the people elect him, he is unquestionably qualified to become Prime Minister.

History offers many examples. Jawaharlal Nehru entered public life in 1912 after returning from England, joined the Home Rule movement in 1916, became deeply involved in Mahatma Gandhi's campaigns after 1920, and finally became Prime Minister in 1947. It took him nearly thirty-five years of public engagement. Atal Bihari Vajpayee entered electoral politics in 1957 but became Prime Minister only in 1996, after almost four decades in public life. Chandrashekhar's journey was similarly long. Great leaders such as Ram Manohar Lohia, Acharya Narendra Dev, Jayaprakash Narayan, K. Kamaraj, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, and Jyoti Basu never became Prime Minister, yet their contributions to India remain immense. No one has the authority to decide who is or is not entitled to aspire to the country's highest office.

One may agree or disagree with political leaders, their ideologies, and their methods, but it is intellectually irresponsible to declare that a person can never become Prime Minister. After all, what were the extraordinary qualifications of many who have occupied the office? Narendra Modi's legacy, like that of all leaders, will ultimately be judged by history. The fact remains that criticism of the BJP is often tolerated only when accompanied by ridicule of the Congress, Rahul Gandhi, or the Gandhi family. Whether one likes it or not, Rahul Gandhi remains the BJP's most visible national challenger.

The sustained campaign against Jawaharlal Nehru and the Gandhi family serves a larger political purpose. Weakening the Congress weakens the only opposition party with an organisational presence across most of India. The RSS understands that despite its many weaknesses, the Congress remains the only party capable of mounting a nationwide challenge to its ideological dominance. The tragedy is that the current Congress leadership has struggled to energise its traditional support base—people who remained committed to the party not for power but out of conviction.

Rahul Gandhi has attempted to introduce new approaches to politics. His interactions with workers, farmers, students, and marginalised communities demonstrate a sensitivity often absent in contemporary politics. Whether these efforts will translate into electoral success remains uncertain, but they have altered public perceptions. Many young people who once mocked him have begun reassessing their views. His video on the Great Nicobar Project, released on World Environment Day, drew attention to an issue that had largely remained outside mainstream political discourse and reached millions through social media.

Following recent elections, there is a renewed sense of energy within the Congress, while several regional parties appear to be facing challenges. The INDIA alliance recently held a meeting in which Rahul Gandhi delivered what many supporters described as a historic speech. Yet the speech also raises important questions.

Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly argued that institutions responsible for ensuring free and fair elections have become compromised. He has spoken about alleged irregularities in electoral rolls and voter registration processes in states such as Haryana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Bihar. Whether one accepts these claims or not, it is notable that many INDIA alliance partners failed to engage seriously with these concerns. Even Rahul Gandhi's Bihar outreach campaign centred on alleged electoral manipulation received little support from leaders such as Mamata Banerjee, the RJD, or Tejashwi Yadav. Many alliance partners viewed Congress as the weakest link in the anti-BJP opposition. Recent electoral setbacks, however, have forced some regional parties to reassess their assumptions.

At the same time, Rahul Gandhi's rhetoric occasionally sounds overly preachy. To suggest that only the Congress is resisting authoritarian tendencies ignores the contributions of numerous other political forces. During the freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi transformed the Congress into a broad-based national movement because he worked alongside a remarkable generation of leaders—Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Azad, Rajendra Prasad, and many others. While they were not revolutionaries in the classical sense, many were deeply committed to both national liberation and social reform.

The organisational decline of the Congress accelerated during the 1970s, particularly after the rise of Sanjay Gandhi. The party gradually moved away from its earlier ideological commitments and increasingly relied on political managers rather than mass leaders. Loyalty became the primary currency of advancement. While loyalty is important in any political organisation, excessive emphasis on it can create what Kanshi Ram famously called the "Chamcha Age"—an era dominated by sycophants rather than committed workers. Such individuals remain loyal only as long as power and rewards are available.

Political managers are useful when a party is in government, but ideological workers sustain a party during difficult times. Congress gradually lost that ideological core. From the 1980s onward, it increasingly flirted with soft Hindutva politics. Rajiv Gandhi's invocation of Ram Rajya, the Shah Bano reversal, and other decisions inadvertently strengthened the BJP. Congress often appeared more determined to weaken secular rivals than to challenge the BJP itself.

The party's response to the Mandal Commission moment remains one of its greatest strategic failures. When the BJP withdrew support from the V.P. Singh government, largely because of reservations for Other Backward Classes, Rajiv Gandhi opposed the Mandal framework in Parliament rather than supporting it. Had Congress backed V.P. Singh, India's political trajectory may have been very different. Instead, the subsequent Chandrashekhar government further fragmented secular politics.

The economic policies pursued during the Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh years also alienated large sections of society. Liberalisation undoubtedly transformed India's economy, but many Dalits, Adivasis, and marginalised communities felt excluded from its benefits. Congress intellectuals promoted programmes such as MNREGA as transformative solutions while simultaneously supporting Special Economic Zones that often displaced vulnerable communities. The alienation of Dalits, Adivasis, and Muslims deepened.

Rahul Gandhi's contemporary emphasis on social justice is welcome, but it also raises questions. Why does he rarely acknowledge figures such as V.P. Singh or Arjun Singh, who played crucial roles in advancing affirmative action and social justice? Today he invokes Kanshi Ram and Mayawati, but many Congress leaders who fought similar battles remain largely forgotten.

Similarly, leaders such as Digvijaya Singh—who initiated important conversations around diversity and social justice—have often been sidelined. He remains one of the party's most thoughtful and politically connected leaders, yet the high command rarely appears to utilise his experience effectively.

Rahul Gandhi must also recognise the contributions of Left parties. Whatever their electoral limitations, Left organisations have consistently raised issues of workers' rights, privatisation, caste violence, and minority protection. Their trade unions, student organisations, and grassroots movements have often remained active when Congress was absent from the streets. Leaders such as Indrajit Gupta, A.B. Bardhan, Sitaram Yechury, Madhu Dandavate, and Surendra Mohan embodied a simplicity and commitment that earned public respect. Even today, leaders like Dipankar Bhattacharya remain closely connected to grassroots struggles.

This is not to deny Rahul Gandhi's achievements. He has undoubtedly revitalised the Congress and restored a degree of energy to the party. Yet rebuilding Congress requires more than speeches. It requires organisational renewal, ideological clarity, and greater humility in dealing with allies.

There is little doubt that a stronger Congress is necessary if the BJP is to face a credible national challenge. But Congress must avoid presenting itself as the sole custodian of democracy, secularism, and social justice. Its relationship with allies such as the DMK, Left parties, Samajwadi Party, and BSP must be based on mutual respect rather than political condescension.

The INDIA alliance can succeed only if it develops a coherent strategy, avoids unnecessary public disputes, and finalises electoral arrangements well in advance. Equally important, Congress must ensure that wherever it governs, it does not attempt to eliminate other secular and democratic forces from the opposition space.

India needs a stronger Congress, but it also needs stronger regional and ideological parties committed to democracy, secularism, federalism, and social justice. Single-party dominance, regardless of which party exercises it, poses a serious challenge to democratic pluralism. A healthy democracy requires multiple centres of political power, vibrant debate, and a strong opposition. The future of Indian democracy depends not on the success of any one party, but on the survival and strengthening of all democratic forces.