How to tackle poll loss? Kharge takes a tip from Sonia, sets up panel to probe Gujarat

“The committee will submit a report to the Congress president within two weeks,” All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary K C Venugopal said in a communication. The Congress’s performance in Gujarat was its worst ever, as the party could win only 17 seats with a vote share of 27.28 per cent.

Kharge’s decision to set up a “fact finding” committee was interesting, as it has been a strategy often successfully employed by Sonia to let leaders vent their angst and criticism after humiliating defeats. The reports of these committees, barring one, have neither been shared with the top leadership, nor discussed in any of the party’s numerous fora, including the Congress Working Committee. It is also not known whether any of the suggestions made or corrective steps recommended by these panels were ever implemented.

Sonia first set up an introspection panel in 1999 after the party’s defeat in the Lok Sabha elections. The 11-member committee, headed by A K Antony, was tasked with identifying the reasons for the defeat. Among the members were Mani Shankar Aiyar, Motilal Vora, P M Sayeed and P R Dasmunshi. They reportedly suggested a series of organisational and structural changes.

The report was placed before the Congress Working Committee (CWC), which gave its approval for the changes recommended. The panel, sources said, had suggested that the candidates for the Lok Sabha election be finalised, if not announced, at least six months in advance, and those for Assembly polls be selected three months ahead, so that they get adequate time to prepare. But these recommendation was never implemented.

Another key suggestion was to hold elections at all levels, including in the CWC, which the panel felt was no longer a representative body. Elections to the CWC, however, were never held during Sonia’s tenure. The report had also suggested firming up alliances in states where the Congress was exceptionally weak.

After 1999, Antony was given the job of introspection thrice — in 2008, 2012 and after the Lok Sabha defeat in 2014. But no one, not even the top leaders, have heard anything since.

In 2021, Sonia set up another committee to look into the party’s defeat in Assam, Kerala, West Bengal and Puducherry. Like the numerous similar previous exercises, neither the contents of the reports of this committee – which was headed by Ashok Chavan, with Salman Khurshid, Manish Tewari, Vincent Pala and Jothi Mani as its members – nor the action taken on it, are known.

A senior leader said the 2021 panel had submitted separate reports on each state. The panel had interacted with hundreds of leaders from the four states and submitted a “comprehensive” report. “Like all other earlier reports, this one too ended up in some dustbin in the AICC… These committees are often a farcical eyewash,” one leader said.

Interestingly, Sonia did not set up any panel after the party’s defeat in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur last year. In-house critics believe it was largely because the Gandhis had played a major role in UP and Punjab.

“Priyanka Gandhi Vadra was and still is in charge of UP. She designed and led the campaign from the front with the high voltage ‘ladki hoon, lad sakti hoon’ theme. She decided to give 40 per cent of the tickets to women. She handpicked most of the candidates. In Punjab, everyone knows it was the Gandhis who decided to appoint Navjot Singh Sidhu as state Congress president, remove Captain Amarinder Singh as chief minister and appoint Charanjit Singh Channi as the Chief Minister… So how can a probe panel be appointed to look into these defeats,” a leader said.

“In Gujarat, Rahul Gandhi did not campaign this time. And the AICC has already blamed the state unit for the defeat. So what can one expect from the panel…,” another leader said.

He was referring to AICC general secretary in charge of communication Jairam Ramesh’s remarks that the Gujarat result was a “very sad reflection” on the state’s organisation. He had argued that there were shortcomings in the Congress campaign and in the local leadership.