When the Congress turned to Mallikarjun Kharge last year, the presidential-mandate primarily involved stabilising the crisis-plagued party and remoulding it into a cohesive fighting unit. Despite being a universally respected stalwart of the party, two serious questions hovered over Kharge’s capability to undertake this mammoth task. One, as the first non-Gandhi president in 24 years, would he have the authority to rebuild consensus in a party that had been, at least since the G23 insurrection, increasingly listless and adrift? Two, would the 81-year-old have the sheer energy to discipline regional elites and push through tough settlements in the fractious state units of Karnataka, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and so on?
In less than a year, the Congress president, Kharge, can justifiably claim to have fulfilled his original mandate to a commendable extent. The crowning confirmation was provided by last month’s reconstitution of the Congress Working Committee. Kharge packed his CWC with sure-footed authority, a consensual process which saw little of the backroom brokering of the Sitaram Kesri-era or the open squabbles of the P.V. Narasimha Rao period. Gandhi loyalists continue to dominate the (comparatively youthful) CWC. Even as the challenger G23 faction has now practically ceased to exist, Kharge deftly co-opted its weakened remnants like Manish Tewari and Shashi Tharoor into the expanded CWC.
Trust in Kharge’s managerial leadership has emerged as a rare point of consensus. This was also evident in Kharge’s seamless management of regional party elites in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh. In the elections to these two states, the Congress’ organisational co-ordination outshone the Bharatiya Janata Party’s powerful electoral machine. Those triumphs also fuelled the Congress’ emergence as the core of the new Opposition-led INDIA platform. The factional strifes threatening the Congress’ fortunes in Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh appear to have been put down amicably, or at least contained, months in advance of the crucial polls. The high command also achieved a synergistic division of responsibilities between factional rivals in poll-bound Madhya Pradesh. Kamal Nath, the unchallenged chief ministerial nominee, crafts the campaign narrative as Digvijaya Singh focuses on revamping the organisation.
Given this remarkable consensus-generating authority of President Kharge, is it time to describe the Congress leadership as a Kharge-Gandhi family duopoly?
Not quite. In fact, President Kharge has contributed in a unique way to reinforcing the dynastic hold of the Gandhis on the Congress. This is because the authority that Kharge commands is not his own but a derivate of the Gandhi family’s dynastic capital within the Congress. He is merely the executor of this dynastic capital, not its source. The Gandhi triumvirate — more specifically, Rahul Gandhi — remains the ultimate arbitrator over the fount of authority and legitimacy within the party.
What is the dynastic capital we are talking about here?
In his book, Why Regional Parties?, the political scientist, Adam Ziegfeld, theorised that the success of regional parties in India did not stem from subnationalism or a distinct programmatic agenda. Simply put, the successful regional parties have been those that have, above all else, adapted themselves as the most effective vehicles of power for an emerging regional elite. Most regional parties have taken dynastic form in India as a dynastic succession has proven to be the most effective guarantor of continuity of the party as a vehicle representing the interests of a particular socio-political configuration. The Congress might be considered a national analogue to these regional parties. Much like a regional party, Congress carries its legitimacy in the form of an unbroken chain of dynastic capital as symbolising a tangible connection to the national project spanning across generations.
A foreign analogue of the Congress might be the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, another collection of national power-seeking elites sharing no clear ideology. Both parties draw legitimacy from representing an unbroken legacy of nation-building and a singular ability to straddle over the country’s cleavages. The difference is that the appeal of the Conservatives is formulated in terms of a vague idea, ‘one-nation conservatism’, which basically represents a reformist compromise between the working classes and the traditional elites. The equivalent Congress idea is essentially embodied and sustained in the form of the dynastic capital of the Gandhi leadership.
The Congress thus depends on the Gandhi family glue, or the strength of its dynastic capital, to remain a singularly powerful vehicle like the Conservatives in the UK. The post-2014 downward cycle had progressively weakened the dynastic capital and the G23 rebellion openly attacked the old framework of legitimacy. Yet, the dynastic leadership of the Gandhis seems to have reformed and revitalised over the last year. The new leadership paradigm has effectively checked the constant stream of defections and perhaps even facilitated the entry of important leaders in Madhya Pradesh and Telangana.
What are the features of the reformed dynastic leadership of the Gandhis?
First, as mentioned above, there is a division of labour between Rahul Gandhi, the supreme leader, and Mallikarjun Kharge, the formal leader. The Gandhi scion confines himself to the task of fortifying dynastic capital through steps such as the Bharat Jodo Yatra and the articulation of the political narrative of the party in terms of an unbroken family legacy. Further, chief ministers such as Ashok Gehlot and Bhupesh Baghel continue to name their flagship schemes after Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi and credit their moves towards social justice to the vision of Rahul Gandhi.
Meanwhile, Kharge has proved uniquely suited to this tricky role of commanding ‘borrowed authority’. This is because Kharge’s personal stature neutralises the ability of any potential dissenter to label him as a lightweight, rubber-stamp president. Not only is he the tallest Dalit leader of the party but Kharge also commands a stellar electoral record stretching across five decades. As a loyal party warhorse, he enjoys the trust of both the Gandhi family as well as the party elites. At the same time, the leadership space Kharge confines himself to does not infringe upon the Gandhi family’s authority. Instead, Kharge has effectively assumed, in a sense, the role previously occupied by Ahmed Patel. That is the role of the management of party elites: balancing equations in the party while providing immunity to the Gandhi family from any backlash. The difference is that the previous generation of dynastic executors — R.K. Dhawan for Indira and Rajiv Gandhi and Patel for Sonia Gandhi — represented a class of backroom operators functioning without any ‘official’ position. It is true that Kharge possesses more autonomy of action and independence of thought than these advisers who merely spoke with the voice of their masters. But what Kharge’s leadership represents is essentially a reformed form of dynastic executor role — enlarged, and made accountable, as the formal executive of the party.
Second, the dynastic capital is now more efficiently spread across the Gandhi triumvirate. While the elderly Sonia Gandhi assists in managing relationships with allies, Priyanka Gandhi helms electoral campaigns in Hindi-belt states such as Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. This helps Rahul Gandhi divest almost completely from the administrative side of the party leaving it in more capable hands. For his part, Rahul Gandhi focuses his energy on articulating the idea of the Congress in the familiar terms of the Gandhi family legacy and presenting a leadership image framed in terms of a national alternative. On Manipur, for example, Rahul Gandhi found a useful issue to place himself squarely as a legatee of protector of the unity of Bharat Mata, a mantle earlier worn by the more hawkish Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.
The upshot of the new dynastic paradigm is that the Congress now appears to have regained the momentum of a cohesive, functioning unit. This refurbished system of control has allowed the Congress to consolidate its position and emerge as a credible claimant for power. Yet, the same dynastic control makes it harder for the party to directly challenge a Narendra Modi-led BJP in national elections, especially as the latter centres his leadership appeal on an anti-dynastic platform. Dynastic capital might provide a sturdy glue to a party but it can also blur its vision. A hard-headed balance is required to ensure that a revitalised dynastic order does not yet again descend into the dynastic morass of the last decade.
Asim Ali is a political researcher and columnist
