When Pettiness Trumps Politics: The Congress-Tharoor Standoff

News18

5 days ago

Last Updated:
By sidelining a valuable asset like Tharoor, the party seems more interested in internal scoresettling than in strategic wins, ultimately shooting itself in the foot
What the Congress party does is its business, but in the manner in which it has dealt with Shashi Tharoor, it seems that the grand old party has decided to cut off its nose to spite its face. Tharoor is a veteran Congressman, who has been a four-time Lok Sabha MP contesting on the Congress symbol, apart from being a minister in the Congress-led UPA government. He has not, as yet, ever said that he intends to leave the party or join another one. Why, then, would his party resent the fact that the BJP, which the Congress opposes, had no better individual than him to lead an all-party delegation to global capitals post Operation Sindoor?
If anything, the Congress should have capitalised on this choice. Whatever personal animosity Rahul Gandhi and his coterie may have against an individual, it was a great opportunity to stress the point that when it comes to national interest, only a Congress leader can do the job effectively.
Imagine a scenario where, after the BJP announced that Tharoor would lead the all-party delegation, Rahul Gandhi had convened a press conference, publicly congratulated Tharoor, and said that the BJP, faced with no other equally convincing choice, had no option but to come to the threshold of the Congress to represent India's interests. Most people—aware of the tensions between Tharoor and his party leadership—would have applauded his big-heartedness and statesmanship.
This would have put the BJP on the back foot. Their political stratagem of sowing seeds of discord in the Congress would have backfired. Tharoor would have probably proudly accepted the vote of confidence from his party in his abilities, and said that, with the backing of his party, he was available—in the national interest—to do for the BJP what it could apparently find no one else to do better. The BJP would then have had to scurry around to provide explanations for why it chose an Opposition leader and a loyal Congressman—from a party it has, through its spokespersons, accused of being anti-national, unpatriotic, and working in the interests of Pakistan!
But such a winning approach requires maturity and incisive statecraft, both of which—it would appear—the Congress leadership sadly lacks. To seize the advantage in politics, parties often need to rise above internal pettiness. The BJP did not protest when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was chosen by the ruling Congress to lead the national delegation to the UN in Geneva. On the contrary, it took it as a badge of honour.
In the case of Tharoor, an old friend and a contemporary from college days, it is, frankly, quite inexplicable to me why his own party has treated him so shabbily. Yes, he was a member of the G-23—a well-intentioned ginger group within the party—that sought changes in order to improve the Congress's electoral and organisational performance. At no point did any member of the G-23 say that they were revolting. In fact, it has been my view that the loosely labelled grouping was far too timid and reticent to do anything that might alienate the Gandhi family, and all they achieved through innumerable meetings was to send a letter seeking the support and intervention of party president Sonia Gandhi.
Why, then, did Rahul treat this grouping as tantamount to treachery and betrayal, and literally chastise some of its members in the Congress Working Committee (CWC) meeting? Apparently, Tharoor's second sin was to stand for the presidency of the party, against what was obviously the family's choice—Mallikarjun Kharge. But the party Constitution allows for such contests. They have happened in the past too, and Shashi personally told me that he had—although there was no need to do so—taken the 'blessings' of Sonia Gandhi for his candidature.
Perhaps his unpardonable sin was that, in spite of a 'packed' voting bloc against him, he managed to secure around a thousand votes—far more than any other candidate in the past who has stood against the family's 'official' nominee.
A truly mature party, flaunting its genuine democratic credentials to the BJP, should then have embraced Tharoor and given him a far more prominent role in party affairs. But exactly the opposite happened. Although he was made a member of the CWC, he found himself increasingly distanced from Rahul Gandhi and his advisers—to the point where he was sometimes not even nominated to speak on important issues in Parliament, where he could have been an asset to his party. His access to Rahul was also almost choked. From apocryphal sources, I know that it took him over two years to get an appointment with Rahul.
So, is the Congress now a party where only two binaries prevail: unconditional sycophant or unquestioned traitor? If yes, it is, to say the least, not only puerile but suicidal, because parties lose the ability for renewal and revival—and the Congress certainly needs both—if they become so immaturely brittle. Such absolute binaries dominate in dozens of family-run parties across the country, and it appears that the Congress is no different.
The Congress has come out of the whole Shashi Tharoor episode with a lot of unnecessary egg on its face. What a waste of an egg—and an opportunity!
The writer is a former diplomat, an author, and a politician. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
congress party Operation Sindoor Rahul Gandhi shashi tharoor
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
May 29, 2025, 19:34 IST
News opinion Opinion | When Pettiness Trumps Politics: The Congress-Tharoor Standoff