With Prashant Kishor gone, Congress is back to square one

A media report, quoted a source inside the Congress as saying, "The difference was on how to execute the revival. PK wanted to be a disruptor. The party wanted incremental changes". To have a ‘difference’ on ‘how to execute the revival’ would mean that the Congress leadership has a plan on how to revive the party, and Kishor’s plans were not aligning with it. If so, where is that plan? The 19-odd percent that voted for the Congress in the 2014 and 2019 general elections have been waiting for years for such a revival. As for ‘incremental changes’, that ship has sailed…a long time back.

Going by the urgency shown, Vladimir and Estragon would meet Godot before the Congress gets its house in order, and fighting fit for elections.

What the Congress needs is a ‘disrupter’, one who can shake up the party, its rusted organisational mechanisms, its long-winding process of committees and sub-committees that are lost in the cobweb-ridden bureaucratic corners of yesteryear politics, and give the party a fighting chance in the upcoming elections. Earlier Rahul Gandhi tried to be that disrupter, but failed.

The disrupter cannot come from within the party because anyone other than the Gandhis will be questioned, and will not command unflinching loyalty and support. Today, after losing election after election, even the Gandhis have lost the command they once enjoyed across the party structure. There’s a book waiting to be written on the number of politicians who questioned and rebelled against the Gandhis, and went on to be successful in Indian politics.

Key Position

Another media report suggested that though some Congress leaders were in favour of giving Kishor a key position in the party, many veterans were against it. The leaders who opposed it, which include Digvijaya Singh, KC Venugopal, Randeep Surjewala, among others, were being pedantic. How would the Congress treat a politician who was switching camp, say joining the party from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)? Politicians who switch sides are rehabilitated in their new party in a befitting manner; it is for a reason that they are welcomed into the party. Even opportunistic turncoats who jump ship on the eve of elections are entertained with the promise of power and position in the party/government.

Then why has the Congress treated Kishor differently? Kishor might not be the conventional politician, but he is also not wet behind the ears. His track record of helping political parties win elections across India is good enough.

On The Back Foot

The Congress erred by going public with the negotiations. Seldom is the process behind an individual joining a political party made public. If it was done on Kishor’s insistence, was the Congress so desperate that it agreed to such a condition? If that’s the case, it reflects poorly on the grand old party. Now that the deal has fallen, the Congress has given its opponents and critics a stick to beat it if the party performs poorly in future elections.

This is bad news for all those who believe in the Congress, and for all those who yearn for a strong opposition party at the national level.

With Kishor moving away from the Congress, a golden opportunity to overhaul the party has been lost. Kishor would have cut the flab, and turned the party into a leaner and efficient organisation which would have given its opponents a run for their money. If the party continues with its ways of functioning, which seems to be the case, the ones who will benefit are those who have nestled themselves in the party organisational setup with nowhere to go.

The house has won, but at what cost?