By Dipak Kurmi
Two decades in politics is no fleeting apprenticeship; it is an era long enough to test convictions, temper ambition and demand accountability. For any political leader, there arrives a moment when inherited capital must yield to demonstrable leadership, when symbolism must translate into structure and sentiment into strategy. Rahul Gandhi, after twenty years in active politics and an unsuccessful bid for the presidency of the Indian National Congress, appears to have reached precisely such a juncture. The political landscape around him has altered dramatically, shaped by the centralised dominance of Narendra Modi and the organisational might of the Bharatiya Janata Party. In such a climate, hesitation is not a neutral stance but a consequential choice. Gandhi today finds himself at a crossroads, confronted by a question that can no longer be deferred: which path does he truly intend to take?
The paradox that defines his present predicament lies in the duality of formal authority and practical influence. Gandhi has allowed himself to function as the de facto chief of the Congress, even as his close aides routinely emphasise that Mallikarjun Kharge is the fully elected president of the party. There is no disputing Kharge’s formal mandate; he has been Congress president for over three years, having defeated Shashi Tharoor in a contest that carried the open backing of Sonia Gandhi and the wider Gandhi family. Yet political reality is rarely confined to constitutional form. The perception within party ranks and beyond is that Gandhi continues to call the shots, that the strategic imprint on the party’s direction bears his signature. In politics, perception often outweighs procedure, and this ambiguity has created a leadership model that is neither wholly transparent nor decisively authoritative.
This ambiguity extends beyond symbolism into operational consequences. Whatever the Congress has achieved during Kharge’s tenure carries Gandhi’s implicit endorsement, just as whatever has been left undone reflects on his judgment. The most conspicuous concern has been indecisiveness: whether in formally assuming the mantle of party president, in initiating sweeping organisational reforms, or in translating rhetoric into structural change. Political parties cannot subsist indefinitely on charisma or lineage; they require disciplined machinery, empowered state units and a clear chain of accountability. Solo acts, however well-intentioned, seldom substitute for institutional coherence. Gandhi’s reluctance either to embrace overt leadership or to cede it decisively has perpetuated a vacuum that neither clarity nor continuity can fill.
The consequences of this prolonged paradox have become increasingly visible. Gandhi’s strenuous Bharat Jodo Yatras generated significant goodwill and revived a measure of moral energy within the party. The marches were historic in scale and symbolic resonance, reconnecting him with the grassroots and foregrounding themes of social harmony and constitutional values. Yet the absence of a coherent follow-up strategy has diluted their impact. Deeply divided party units, from the All India Congress Committee down to state and Union Territory levels, have struggled to carry the message forward. In several regions, the party’s organisational structures appear hollowed out, with critics alleging that the BJP’s sleeper cells are effectively running Pradesh Congress Committees in some states. Without systematic consolidation, even the most evocative political mobilisation risks slipping into oblivion.
Responsibility for this drift does not rest on Gandhi alone, though it ultimately converges on him. His inner circle and advisory apparatus have been subject to persistent criticism. Within AICC circles, a common refrain persists: who exactly are Gandhi’s advisers? The opacity surrounding his consultative framework has bred scepticism, compounded by complaints regarding his inaccessibility and that of his team, particularly the general secretary in charge of organisation, KC Venugopal. A political party thrives on constant dialogue between leadership and cadre, between national vision and local realities. When that dialogue falters, alienation sets in. Gandhi’s multifaceted personality and intellectual grounding are not in question; what is contested is his ability to translate thought into sustained organisational momentum and to lead by personal example in a manner that inspires replication throughout the hierarchy.
To his credit, Gandhi’s advocacy for marginalised communities and his insistence on social justice have been consistent. His effort to reclaim the Congress’s traditional support base among disadvantaged sections reflects ideological continuity with the party’s historic commitments. Yet politics demands balance as much as conviction. A strategy perceived as favouring one segment at the expense of broader coalition-building can generate discourse without delivering electoral dividends. In a plural society as complex as India’s, the art of leadership lies in caring for all while antagonising none, in articulating moral clarity without narrowing the tent. Gandhi must grapple with whether his messaging, however principled, has sufficiently accommodated this equilibrium.
Meanwhile, the national political environment grows ever more dynamic. Serious questions are being raised about the policies and planning of the Modi government, particularly concerning social cohesion and institutional balance. The recent episode involving Swami Avimukteshwarananda, the Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, at the Prayagraj Magh Mela, where he reportedly sat on dharna protesting alleged administrative insult without visible pacification from either the Prime Minister or Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, has stirred debate. For a party confronting an assertive Hindutva narrative, such developments present both challenge and opportunity. The Congress cannot afford to remain reactive when ideological contestation intensifies. Yet its responses have appeared hesitant, even as the BJP’s fire-fighting mechanisms operate with remarkable agility, recalibrating narratives and turning the tables with disciplined coordination.
Compounding these ideological contests are structural concerns about the electoral playing field. Allegations surrounding measures such as the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and other administrative actions perceived to tilt advantage toward the ruling dispensation have been vocally challenged by Gandhi. His willingness to contest such issues demonstrates political engagement, but no external battle can compensate for internal disarray. An opposition leader cannot appear as a solitary crusader; he must embody the head of a cohesive and confident formation. The Congress’s revival hinges less on rhetorical defiance and more on organisational regeneration.
The contrast with Narendra Modi’s leadership model is instructive. Critics often note that Modi too maintains distance from the BJP’s rank and file, yet his authority remains unchallenged because it is buttressed by a formidable organisational architecture. The saffron party operates through a multi-tier mechanism that synchronises central command with grassroots mobilisation, enabling swift decision-making and sustained narrative discipline. Leadership in such a system is not diluted by procedure; it is amplified by structure. Gandhi, operating under far more intense scrutiny as an opposition figure, cannot afford ambiguity in either authority or accountability. If he seeks generational change within the Congress, as he has periodically indicated, it will require more than rhetoric. It demands courage, conviction, fortitude and flexibility, alongside the readiness to take hard decisions that may unsettle entrenched interests.
Ultimately, the crossroads confronting Rahul Gandhi is less about personal ambition than about institutional destiny. The Congress, as India’s oldest political party, carries historical weight but cannot subsist on memory alone. It requires clarity of leadership, transparency of process and boldness of reform. Gandhi must decide whether to formalise his de facto role, to empower alternative leadership unequivocally, or to architect a genuinely collective transition. Indecision has already exacted a cost. The moment calls for a definitive course, for leadership that is visible, accountable and strategically coherent. In politics, time is both ally and adversary. For Rahul Gandhi, the window to convert moral positioning into organisational resurgence remains open, but it narrows with each passing season.
(the writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
