Congress party and its Tharoor dilemma

Shashi is not a conventional politician. He does not operate in cabals and coteries. Instead, he relies on his talent and skills. This means he is open, ambitious and in search of recognition. Understandably, he wants to attract attention to himself. It is his way of moving forward. And he has been very successful at it. His fan following on Twitter and his recognisability are testimony to that.

The Congress leadership, at least since the time of Indira Gandhi, has flourished through sycophancy. They are followers. Their leaders are the Gandhis and they have dedicated their careers to service. They have learnt not to shine brighter than Rahul, not to contradict Sonia and, now, to promote Priyanka. And to legitimise this family worship, they have convinced themselves that the Congress cannot survive without the Gandhi family.

A brief comparison between Shashi and Rahul is telling. Shashi has risen by dint of talent, intelligence and hard work. Rahul’s calling card is his surname. His career achievements have been limited or, at least, unidentified. Shashi’s strength is his sesquipedalian vocabulary and his pleasing manner. Rahul, in comparison, seems inarticulate. Shashi is an author of over 20 books. He attracts young aspirational India. Rahul’s appeal is to the poor and the economically or socially suppressed. They shine in different worlds.

As a former diplomat, Shashi’s manner is discreet, polite and accepting of the achievements of his adversaries. This is why he does not blanche praising Modi’s US-visit or the CPM’s nurturing of start-ups in Kerala. Rahul’s style is blunt, even bruising. He’s a verbal pugilist. He hits much harder.

Not surprisingly, Rahul has moved effortlessly to the top of the Congress party. In contrast, Shashi’s political career hasn’t sparkled. He was briefly minister of State for external affairs and human resource development. After 2014, he has been chairman of a couple of parliamentary select committees. But he has never been a front-rank politician. His renown is because of his past or his ancillary and extra-curricular activities. The Congress is not convinced he is a future leader.

All of this leaves me with three questions which I believe are germane to the differences between Shashi Tharoor and his party. First, does the apparent rift suggest the Congress doesn’t know how to handle talented individuals, who are highly regarded and could be viewed as rivals to Rahul Gandhi? Consider for a moment how they are perceived by the outside world. Rahul is seen as a product of dynasty and entitlement. Shashi as a product of talent and performance. In its loyalty to its presiding dynasty, has the Congress squeezed and limited the room it has left for talent and performance?

Second, if Shashi has had only a minimal role to play in the party, whether in or outside Parliament, is that because the Congress is wary of utilising his talents and skills because it is unaccustomed to such qualities? If it was once a broad tent has it now lost the capacity to recognise aspirational attributes?

Third, did Shashi err in contesting for the Congress presidency, knowing he could never win but might make those who matter wary of his ambition and even, possibly, of his intent? I know he stood to make the election democratic. Ordinarily, that should have been admired. But did it run against the grain of the Congress, where office is mostly handed down, not contested and won?

There is also a fourth, if academic, question. If Shashi were to separate from the Congress, how much of a setback would that be for the party? If his ambitions in Kerala are thwarted, that might just happen. I don’t know if it will, but I don’t believe he’ll ever join the BJP.

Karan Thapar is the author of Devil’s Advocate: The Untold Story. The views expressed are personal