Rahul Gandhi’s Pune remarks open new front in ideology discourse

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat* 

Rahul Gandhi’s Chhatrokigoonj programme may be drawing noticeable enthusiasm from urban middle‑class youth, but whether it will help the Congress in the long run remains an open question. His new avatar—colourful shirts, casual interactions, and a more relaxed public persona—does resonate with young Indians. He is also asking several important questions. Yet he must recognise that the same Gen Z audience is often uncomfortable with some of the issues he foregrounds, including social justice, caste census, and reservations. Rahul Gandhi needs to walk a careful line. His communication strategy must ensure that no section feels unrepresented or offended. Even the language of social justice must be framed as reconciliation rather than confrontation.

Rahul Gandhi today commands a “fan following” similar to Narendra Modi’s. Anyone disagreeing with him is often mocked or targeted by his supporters—an unhealthy trend in any democracy. His recent Pune event crossed a line when he called for “smashing patriarchy.” In social justice movements, the slogan is “smashing Brahmanical patriarchy,” but even that phrase carries political risk. In today’s climate, speaking about patriarchy—or any entrenched social evil—invites backlash because communities prefer hearing about others’ fault lines, not their own. His reference to Manusmriti was unnecessary and politically unwise. It handed Hindutva groups an easy opportunity to accuse him of selectively criticising Hinduism while ignoring problematic practices in other religions. Women’s rights are not confined to Hinduism, nor is caste. Political leaders must avoid appearing to target one community.

Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly claimed that Chhatrokigoonj is not a political platform, though it clearly is. Allowing Neha Singh Rathore to perform her rhetorical, Bhojpuri‑centric satire was a misstep. Her songs may work in UP and Bihar political rallies, but they do not necessarily resonate with university students in Pune. More importantly, Rahul Gandhi failed to mention Jyotiba Phule, Savitribai Phule, or Dr B.R. Ambedkar—towering figures of women’s empowerment and anti‑caste struggle. In Pune, the land of Peshwai oppression and Phule’s historic resistance, this silence was glaring. Brahmanical liberals may celebrate Rahul’s statements as “revolutionary,” but he has not yet reached the ideological clarity of Ambedkar, Phule, or Periyar. Nor is it possible for him to do so without antagonising his urban savarna supporters and his own Brahminical colleagues—many of whom remained silent when Hindutva leaders “purified” a venue after Mallikarjun Kharge’s rally in Haldw

Political leaders need broad support. Every religion requires reform, and people across communities selectively use religious texts to suit their convenience. BJP’s targeting of Muslims has not weakened Islam; it has strengthened religious identity among Muslims. Reactionary groups thrive on creating external threats. All holy texts—Quran, Bible, Manusmriti—contain outdated passages that must be rejected. But rejecting entire texts is futile. Manusmriti did not disappear because Ambedkar burned it in 1927; it faded because people stopped giving it importance. Most Hindu households keep Ramayana, Ramcharitmanas, or Bhagavad Gita—not Manusmriti. Caste and gender biases were cultural inheritances, not products of active Manusmriti reading. If Rahul Gandhi invokes Manusmriti, why not invoke Ambedkar, Phule, or Periyar? Savitribai Phule’s legacy would have been far more meaningful in Pune.

Since 2004, Congress has paid a heavy political price for being perceived as anti‑Hindu. The RSS successfully created the impression that Congress “appeased Muslims,” even though the party remained dominated by Brahmin‑Bania interests with only token Muslim representation. If Rahul Gandhi wants radical change, he must walk the talk. Social justice, reservation, and women’s empowerment should be articulated by multiple leaders—not only him. Otherwise, he risks replicating Modi’s 2014 presidential‑style campaign, which is ill‑suited for a deeply divided India.

Rahul Gandhi’s emphasis on individual freedom must be tempered with realism. The Western concept of the “individual” has often produced chaos and alienation. Human beings need social systems and community belonging. Individualism itself is a product of Western hegemonic thought, where white identity remains privileged. In India, many successful individuals have relied on religious identity while ignoring Dalits, Adivasis, and other marginalised groups. Adivasi value systems—collective, egalitarian, community‑centric—are often superior to self‑centred individualism.

No politician can reform religious texts by decree. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists will resist attempts to alter their scriptures. The focus should be on issues that concern all communities. A Muslim woman has the right to wear or not wear a burqa just as a Hindu woman has the right to wear or not wear a saree. Old texts are often symbolic, not prescriptive. Modern India already operates under a republican Constitution that supersedes religious customs. Congress must stand firmly for religion as a private matter. No public processions. No glorification of religious texts. And no selective criticism.

Rahul Gandhi faces a formidable opponent in the BJP, which still commands enormous wealth, organisational strength, and mass support. His attempt to differentiate Congress from BJP—not as its “B‑team”—is commendable. But Congress’s Brahmanical elite remains silent on his ideological positions. The nation does not want debates on Manusmriti, Quran, or Bible. Our rights come from the Constitution. What people want from Rahul Gandhi is clarity on education, healthcare, employment, public sector revival, and basic needs. He has explained what Modi has dismantled. Now he must explain what he will build.

Gen Z should not be romanticised. They must be brought together, not pushed toward the anarchic “reel culture” shaped by global capitalism. International capital seeks to weaken countries like Russia, China, and India. Russia and China have resisted American dominance; India remains aligned with it. An individualistic class without fraternity will create chaos. India needs peaceful coexistence, equal citizenship, and constitutional morality.

Women’s liberation concerns all religions. Burning all holy books will not create a humane society. Traditions evolve naturally; they are not enforceable after the adoption of the Constitution. Rahul Gandhi must avoid symbolic battles that alienate communities. India needs a unifying vision, not selective radicalism.

---

*Human rights defender