Hardik Patel, the young Patidar leader who quit the Congress Wednesday, may have discovered newer — and greener — pastures to further his ambitions. However, his parting statement holds lessons for the Congress, which had appointed him working president two years ago. Sure, his reasons for leaving aren’t original. They echo remarks made by leaders who have quit the Congress in recent times but the party and its leadership should not dismiss them as the whinings of an impatient, ambitious leader. All available evidence shows that it will do exactly that, reinforcing its image as a party that has place only for those who are neither impatient nor ambitious.
Patel, who shot into limelight as the face of the Patidar agitation in 2015, was a high-profile recruit to the Congress. He was appointed to the state leadership seemingly at the behest of Rahul Gandhi. Patel has now complained that the central leadership showed little interest in Gujarat and state leaders were busy appeasing visiting Central leaders. A more serious charge he has made is that the Congress acts as an “obstructive” presence and a “roadblock” on issues related to India, Gujarat and the Patidar community. In the first instance, it could well be that the central leadership wanted state leaders to act on their own own rather than wait for the party high command to issue instructions. If so, the latter clearly has failed to communicate it down the rungs. Since Indira Gandhi institutionalised the high command in the 1970s, the Congress has followed a top down leadership model with state units having limited autonomy in deciding party tactics, strategy and policies. Recent events in states such as Punjab indicate that little has changed: In Punjab, the Congress lost the recent elections and its star leaders, among them Amarinder Singh, and on Thursday, former state chief, Sunil Jakhar. The party has not had organisational elections in nearly two decades and state unit chiefs are nominated by the party high command. The nomination culture — senior leaders want to be in the Rajya Sabha than fight their way to Parliament by winning Lok Sabha elections — has bred not just complacency at the top but has also turned into a glass ceiling for young leaders from the grass roots. Patel’s description of the Congress’s failure in crafting a coherent narrative on national issues — Hindutva, Article 370, Ayodhya, etc. — has more than a ring of truth. Congress leaders in their individual capacity do speak and write on these issues, but as a party it has seldom articulated its stance on these matters. This breakdown in communication is reflected in leaders speaking in different voices and often out of sync with the positions the party claims to uphold.
What Patel’s exit will mean for Congress in a poll-bound Gujarat will be known as events unfold. But it will certainly not help the party in the face of a new Gujarat government, its Cabinet revamped barely eight months ago — and, of course, the BJP’s juggernaut already on the move. The Congress ran the BJP close in the 2017 assembly election, but failed to build any momentum. The high command’s ad-hoc appointments to the state leadership did not help either. Why did the party let go of Patel? Perhaps, someone in Cambridge, where Rahul Gandhi is scheduled to explain his idea of India in a few days, should ask him that question.
