DEAD LETTER DAY
The August 7 letter to Sonia Gandhi was to be an inflection point, the start of a Congress course correction. But as in the past, family loyalists closed ranks, vilified the ‘letter writers’
The party blows yet another chance of course correction and vilifies the leaders who wrote to Sonia Gandhi
On August 24, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) convened to deliberate on a letter written by a group of leaders to party president Sonia Gandhi. The party’s highest decision-making body concluded with two predictable resolutions—it asked her to continue as president “until such time as circumstances will permit an AICC session to be convened” and authorised her to effect organisational changes as deemed appropriate.
The letter, dated August 7, was signed by at least 23 leaders, and had demanded, among several things, a full-time, active and available leadership and an institutional mechanism for collective leadership, in which “Gandhi family members would be an integral part”. This meant two categorical assertions: the uncertainty over Sonia’s continuation as Congress president must end and the Gandhi family, instead of wielding absolute authority, must exercise power in a collective arrangement. While many saw this as a demand for a non-Gandhi party president, others took it as a signal to Rahul Gandhi—de facto head of the Congress—to practise inclusive decision-making.
The CWC’s decisions, therefore, were perceived by many as a summary rejection of the issues raised by the signatories of the letter including leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad, CWC members Anand Sharma, Mukul Wasnik and Jitin Prasada, former Union ministers Manish Tewari, Shashi Tharoor, Kapil Sibal and Milind Deora, ex-chief ministers Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Prithviraj Chavan and current Bihar campaign chief Akhilesh Prasad Singh. While AICC general secretary (organisation) K.C.
Venugopal said that the process to elect the next president would begin at the earliest possible date, there was no mention of any step towards collective leadership or organisational elections. The CWC resolution also ruled out the possibility of a non-Gandhi Congress president in the near future. “The CWC, reflecting the overwhelming view and desire of the rank and file of the Congress, unanimously resolved to strengthen the hands of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in every possible way,” read the resolution. In the meeting, former prime minister Manmohan Singh categorically dismissed the idea of collective leadership: “No purpose would be served by their insistence on collective leadership. We have to rely on Soniaji and Rahulji to provide leadership.” Former Lok Sabha MP Sushmita Dev says, “I’m tired of the committees in the party. For every decision, multiple rounds of consultation happen. Isn’t this collective leadership?”
The letter writers, though, aren’t ready yet to accept this as a “crushing defeat” (as portrayed by their detractors) and claim that the AICC session will be the first step towards initiating the “reforms” they have demanded. “The letter was not questioning the leadership of either Sonia Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi. It was about bringing institutional reforms to the party, about finding the glide path to 272 in the next general election,” one prominent signatory told india today. Another added that they “were not expecting changes to happen overnight. There is a public acceptance that election to the post of president will happen once the pandemic gets over. An AICC session will be convened, which means some select CWC members cannot dump their wishes on the entire party. This is a good beginning”.
Whether this leads to a good beginning or not, the group’s attempt to bring in organisational reforms began on a sour note with the release of the letter’s contents to a media house a
THE LEAK OF THE LETTER’S CONTENTS TOOK THE FOCUS AWAY FROM THE ISSUES BEING RAISED. SOME EVEN HINTED AT A CONSPIRACY BEING HATCHED IN COLLUSION WITH THE BJP...
day before the CWC meeting. The leaders were well within their rights to raise concerns, but the leak took the focus away from the issues being raised. Instead, at the meeting, they had to face questions on the motive and timing of the letter. Some hinted at a conspiracy being hatched in collusion with the BJP. Even those who usually measure their words came down heavily on the “letter writers”. “Sonia Gandhiji must continue to be president bereft of extraneous considerations being raised by vested interests…the fact that they have raised it through the media is even more unfortunate,” said Manmohan Singh.
Beyond the unpleasant exchanges, what this episode unravelled is the sharp divide that has emerged within the party over the past couple of years. At the centre of it is Rahul Gandhi. In fact, the letter bomb is being seen as a response to a new Congress executive team that had been planned more than two months ago, primarily with leaders who are “in sync with Rahul’s vision of the Congress”. Party insiders claim that Rahul is unwilling to return to the Congress helm until a team of his choice is installed and the party is rid of “self-serving” leaders.
Last year, when he resigned as Congress president owning responsibility for the drubbing in the Lok Sabha election, Rahul lamented how he often stood alone in his battle against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP-RSS machinery. At a CWC meeting on June
23, Rahul had the same plaint, accusing most leaders of skipping direct criticism of Modi. His sister and AICC general secretary Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra also waded in, while Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Satav, known for his proximity to Rahul, accused senior Congress leaders of lacking a fighting spirit. The rebuttal had then come from Anand Sharma—one of the signatories of the August 7 letter—who said many senior leaders were upfront against Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah and Parliament records would bear testimony to it.
Tensions between some of the ‘letter writers’ and Rahul loyalists again came to the fore on July 30 in a meeting of the Congress Rajya Sabha MPs with Sonia Gandhi. When ex-Union minister Kapil Sibal (another signatory) called for introspection and honest
discussion on the party’s slide, Satav hit back saying the introspection should begin from the UPA-II period. The next day, members of the UPA cabinet, such as Tewari, Tharoor and Sharma, countered through social media— without taking Satav’s name—that Congress workers ought to be proud of the accomplishments of the UPA and former prime minister Manmohan Singh. A week later came the five-page letter for Sonia Gandhi.
According to Congress sources, the ‘letter writers’ were growing increasingly uncomfortable with Rahul “running the party through a proxy, his mother Sonia Gandhi”, and his confidants rising in the party power structure. For instance, Venugopal, a favourite, was not only made general secretary (organisation) but also sent to the Rajya Sabha from Rajasthan. Satav was made an Upper House member from Gujarat. Another long-time loyalist, Ajay Maken, was recently made general secretary incharge of Rajasthan and inducted into the CWC. Sushmita Dev is now head of the women’s wing of the party. Gaurav Gogoi, a 37-year-old Lok Sabha MP from Assam, is in charge of West Bengal which has 42 Lok Sabha seats.
Earlier, on April 18, when Sonia Gandhi constituted an 11-member consultative group to “deliberate on matters of current concern”, it included seven leaders who owed their place in the party to Rahul. This caused resentment among many. The omission of veterans such as Ghulam Nabi Azad and Anand Sharma indicated the future course of leadership. While the signatories this week heaped praise on Rahul in the letter, their disapproval of certain aspects of his leadership was evident from the criticism of the Youth Congress and NSUI election process he had introduced. The letter claimed it led to the capture of the state units of these outfits by those with money and political patronage.
The “rebels” were also—by their own choice—not part of the narrative Rahul has been trying to weave against PM Modi on multiple issues—from the Covid-19 pandemic to the Chinese aggression in Ladakh. Many of them were uncomfortable with Rahul’s personal attacks on Modi as it seemed to backfire on the Congress. Several others (not part of the signatories) complain that there is no regular articulation in the Congress forum on the party’s position on issues of national importance. In fact, some quarters say the idea of a collective leadership is also to counter Rahul’s unilateral actions. The letter points out that the CWC meetings are currently episodic and demanded a revival of the parliamentary board, disbanded in 1993 by then Congress president and prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.
This gradual sidelining has not only made a section of leaders restless but also has party workers worried about the future. While Rahul remains adamant at not returning as Congress president, Sonia’s reluctance to continue and her health issues have added to the uncertainty. Earlier, too, leaders such as Tharoor, Tewari and Deora had batted for an election to find a non-Gandhi president, but most did not warm up to the idea. Under these circumstances, there was a general feeling that the party, following two humiliating back-to-back defeats in the Lok Sabha elections and a string of defeats in the states, cannot continue with a businessas-usual attitude.
This is why the ontents of the August 7 letter found resonance and brought together a diverse group of leaders, cutting across age, geography, position and allegiance. “India needs a strong opposition to confront the BJP. Suggestions for party’s renewal made in sincerity is not dissent. Wish all colleagues had read it,” tweeted Anand Sharma. At the CWC meeting, there was no discussion on the concerns raised, and a large majority of party leaders—despite agreeing with the issues raised—dismissed the signatories as a group of desperados trying to save their flailing political careers. “There are three sets of leaders among the letter writers. The first set has various cases against them. The second is disgruntled because they did not get certain positions or are afraid of losing them. The third set has leaders who fancy themselves as prime ministerial candidates,” a CWC member told india today.
Despite such disparaging, the signatories claim they got signatures of 303 Congress members across the country. Many others offered moral support though they were unwilling to come out in the open. Whether more support comes in or not, there is no denying that they raised critical structural issues in the party. “The tension may have defused for now, but if concrete action is not taken and there are no visible changes, the number of dissenters will increase. More importantly, the party could collapse,” says a former Congress chief minister. Family loyalists give assurances that “action will be taken soon”, but that is something everyone has heard before.