The recent electoral setback in Bihar and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's impactful performance in Parliament's Winter Session have reignited intense debate within political circles about the leadership of Rahul Gandhi and the structural decline of the Indian National Congress. While questions swirl around Mr. Gandhi's political gravitas post the Bharat Jodo Yatra, analysts argue the party's troubles stem from deeper, historical roots of centralised power, not merely from one individual's leadership.
The Historical Roots: 1969 Split and the "Proprietorship" Model
In a revealing anecdote, writer and former editor Sanjaya Baru recalls a conversation with the late former President Pranab Mukherjee. When Baru suggested the Congress decline began during Rajiv Gandhi's tenure, Mukherjee pushed the timeline further back, pinpointing the critical year of 1969. This was the year the party, which led India's freedom struggle, underwent a formal split.
This perspective finds resonance in the writings of former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. In his book The Insider, a character remarks that around the time of the Emergency, "the party had become a proprietorship." Both stalwarts believed the 1969 split, followed by an intense centralisation of authority within the Prime Minister's office and the Nehru-Gandhi family, severely weakened the party's organisational fabric. Chief ministers were reduced to rubber stamps, eroding state-level leadership.
Missed Opportunities for Revival and Reinvention
The party saw a brief revival in the 1980s, but it was built on this same centralised, personality-driven model where "Indira became India." A genuine chance for organisational renewal emerged in the 1990s. After the era of coalition politics began, the Congress had an opportunity to transform into a normal, mainstream party not reliant on a single family's charisma.
This required empowering regional leaders across the country to rebuild from the grassroots. However, this did not materialise. The vacuum was filled by Sonia Gandhi and her inner circle. Even after returning to power in 2004, the Congress failed to systematically revive its state units. The sole exception was Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy in Andhra Pradesh, whose painstakingly built organisation was later undermined by the central leadership in Delhi.
Other potential avenues, like reintegrating strong regional satraps such as Sharad Pawar or Mamata Banerjee, were not pursued. Instead, the years in office were used to further consolidate the family's hold. The succession plan for Rahul Gandhi became evident, with figures like former PM Manmohan Singh publicly endorsing him in 2013, even after Mr. Gandhi publicly repudiated a cabinet ordinance.
The BJP's Parallel Path and a Glimmer of Change in Congress
Ironically, as the Congress grapples with the legacy of its centralisation, the Bharatiya Janata Party under Prime Minister Narendra Modi is seen as walking a similar path. Baru argues that the BJP, which rose as a cadre-based organisation, has been transformed into a personality-centric party within a decade under Mr. Modi's leadership. Regional leaders within the BJP have been marginalised, while political lightweights loyal to the centre have been elevated.
This model, the analysis suggests, may eventually lead to the BJP's organisational decline as well, despite its current dominance and RSS support. One consequence is that in the Congress, the weakness of the national leadership is encouraging regional figures like Siddaramaiah in Karnataka and Revanth Reddy in Telangana to assert themselves. Similarly, senior Congress leaders such as Shashi Tharoor, Digvijaya Singh, and others have become more vocal, indicating a nascent challenge to the centralised command structure.
The central thesis remains clear: The relentless centralisation of power since 1969 has cost the Congress dearly. Rahul Gandhi inherited an atrophied party structure. For the Congress, a genuine decentralisation of leadership may be its only hope for a sustainable future. Conversely, the BJP's continued centralisation around a single personality, mirroring the Congress's old model, could well become its long-term undoing.
