Not accommodating Tharoor could trigger trouble for Gandhis, Kharge

Many who backed Tharoor were those who believe in the future, are forward-looking and represent an aspirational middle class, a section not with the Congress today

It was a high-stakes election, intended to signal a change in the functioning — and hopefully, in time, the fortunes — of the Grand Old Party. But Congressmen and women, presented with an opportunity to revitalise the party, acted predictably. Instead of voting for Shashi Tharoor and the possibility of change, earlier this week, they chose the status quo by plumping for the establishment candidate, Mallikarjun Kharge, in elections to the post of party president.

Indeed, barring perhaps one member of the G-23, the group of Congressmen who had demanded elections in the party and a total change in the High Command-driven functioning of the party two years ago — an act that was seen at the time by many as an act of high rebellion — all the others played safe.

Read | Tharoor gives toughest fight to winning Congress President in three decades

And yet, the dominant view emerging in the party — even among those who voted for Kharge — is that though the challenger, Tharoor, had lost, the fact that he polled close to 12 per cent in the face of enormous odds, meant there was a mood for change. Tharoor, therefore — this view has it — would have to be accommodated in a significant decision-making role in the Congress, whether as a senior party functionary, as a member of the Congress Working Committee, or maybe, Congress Leader in the Lok Sabha. Else, the ripple that this presidential election has produced could become a wave.

Shashi Tharoor "must be accommodated"

Indeed, conversations with some ordinary delegates — all of whom voted for Kharge, rather than for Tharoor, the challenger — threw up some interesting insights.

One delegate from Haryana told this writer that the fact that Tharoor had actually secured as many as 1072 votes was a remarkable achievement as Kharge was both an established leader in the party and clearly the choice of the Gandhis — despite the denials from the First Family. Especially as Tharoor is still seen by a vast majority in the party as a "political novice" with "no experience in the organisation", even though he has won three Lok Sabha elections in a row, this delegate continued. In fact, he stressed that he had more votes than those who had challenged the "official" candidate on the last two occasions when elections to the party president's post were held.

In 1997, two well-established leaders with considerably more political heft — and, in one case, even resources — than Tharoor, Sharad Pawar and Rajesh Pilot contested against Sitaram Kesri, the official candidate at the time (who incidentally did not have the backing of the Gandhis). But they managed only 882 and 354, respectively, against the winning total of 6224. In 2000, Sonia Gandhi, the sitting president, trounced a party heavyweight, Jitendra Prasada, 7448-94.

Selected, not elected delegates

A delegate from Uttar Pradesh, who did not entirely agree with the delegate from Haryana, however, conceded to this writer, "The elections have gone according to the script that was written. But the leadership definitely needs to show generosity — "bada dil hona chahiye" — to Shashi Tharoorji and give him a position of authority as well. I am surprised that given that delegates in our party are 'selected', not 'elected', he polled so many votes. Everyone knows that when Tharoorji visited the various states, the state Pradesh Congress Committees (PCCs) did merely not welcome him nor provide a forum where he could express his views and canvass votes, but they actively opposed him. This means those in leadership positions at the Centre had told them not to cooperate with him. But the results demonstrate that at least 1072 delegates defied this."

Elaborating on this, this delegate explained that the Congress operates on the basis of entrenched networks. The delegates — who form the electoral college for this election — depend on the state leaders who have "selected" them: "Their growth in the party depends directly on these state leaders, whose futures, in turn, depend on the Gandhis — that is how the system works. Personal loyalties to individual leaders come into play — an individual's success hinges on the success of the local leader one owes allegiance to. So, if you want a really democratic election, elect, don't select, delegates," he said, stressing, "only then the delegates, i.e. the voters, will be truly independent."

He added that it was against this backdrop that the act of voting for Tharoor by 1072 delegates must be viewed. "You could say that it is these 1072 who have truly placed party above self."

However, what mattered now was not that Kharge — who, he said, is widely respected — had been elected, but what he did with his presidency: "The most important thing to watch out for is what sort of blueprint he draws up for the party, and who he appoints to execute it. But make no mistake, the Gandhis are still in control — though they have now been given a warning."

Who voted for Tharoor?

Clearly, it will take a while to identify this group of 1072 who defied the party line, so to speak. But the names of three who came out in the open provide some indication. They are Salman Soz from Kashmir, Sandeep Dikshit from Delhi and Karthi Chidambaram from Tamil Nadu, all of whom are in their 50s. If they represent a wide swathe of the country, unlike Tharoor, they are all second-generation Congressmen — in Dikshit's case, the third generation. All three are well-educated, and Soz and Mr Chidambaram, like Tharoor, have been educated abroad. Soz and Dikshit share an alma mater with Tharoor — Delhi's St Stephen's College. Both Tharoor and Soz were presidents of the college students' union in their time. And if there was a section that ran Tharoor's campaign, it was the All India Professionals' Congress (AIPC), a wing of the Congress that focused on drawing in working professionals and entrepreneurs into the party fold — and of which Tharoor was the chairman.

In short, a large number of those who backed Tharoor were those who believe in the future, are forward-looking and represent an aspirational middle class, a section that is not with the Congress today.

But curiously, some party seniors, too, backed him. This included the 90-year-old Mohsina Kidwai, who had, in the past, been both cabinet minister and party general secretary: she, in fact, had signed his nomination papers. Another person who had expressed his willingness to sign Tharoor's forms was 81-year-old Mani Shankar Aiyar, also a former cabinet minister: he was unable to do so because his name initially did not figure in the list of delegates. Neither Kidwai nor Aiyar can be described as being opposed to the Gandhis.

Tharoor has not just accepted his defeat gracefully, he has offered to help in the revival of the party. It will be churlish — and frankly stupid on the part of those who hold power in the Congress now — not to accept that offer.

(Smita Gupta is a senior journalist)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.